...The rush to retract suggests to me that there is fear of the consequences of this hypothesis being true.
...This is a valuable hypothesis which brings together observations fron different medical disciplines and unifies them into a whole.
The thinking cannot be retracted, even if the paper is attacked. Too late!
Jace posted the original comment that I believe originated with Gerwyn (at least that is what she said on Foggy Friends). I do not believe there is a 'rush to retract' if anything Science have taken a long time considering all of this and recent events (the contamination and retraction from Silverman) may only have served to compound their concerns. Remember they requested a voluntary full retraction before Silverman discovered the contamination and contamination questions remain unanswered.
What I have read in the past few days are excuses being banded around for why 'XMRV' was not found in the BWG study, along with the theory that it wasn't 'XMRV' at all (even after Mikovits and everyone else had been telling us all it was and Lombardi provided 'evidence' of a strong 'association' with CFS patients and even in healthy controls).
Here is one (in part) that seems to be offered up as reasons for the BWG failure:
http://www.twiv.tv/2011/10/02/twiv-1...ment-325127347
From 'Fry':
'Sorry Professor, but patients know that the WPI and NCI discovered HGRVs. XMRV was the wrong name, although of the human gammaretroviruses they discovered some will have a xenotropic host range.
As all the negative papers, including the blood group, used assays that had only been shown capable of detecting VP62, which does not exist in nature, and not theses viruses, everything is explained.
The WPI and NCI assays of course do not count in this instance as there was no Trizol used with the PBMCs and culture times that those assays do require was not given by the blood group. After all they were trying to protect the blood supply with a fast high throughput assay, not a reliable test for positives that takes times and it seems Trizol.
The CFIDS Ass have less than 1% of patients as members in the US, so they cannot claim to represent patients on any scale and even now have claimed they are switching to research, but how can they when the definitions they use for the disease don't require any symptoms, signs, or more importantly objective measures.
Most experienced ME scientists would also say this disease is not complicated at all. The WPI and NCI/Ruscetii are however making incredible steps forward, as their research has been confirmed by Lo et al. and Hanson.
It is interesting that you mention Lipkin is now doing deep sequencing for XMRV, will that include the human gammaretroviruses the WPI and NCI discovered? However, this really puts Lipkin is a new light, as if he is doing his own research he now has a conflict of interest regarding the multi lab study.
Really he should not be heading that up with this conflict and the Chronic fatigue initiative conflict of interest.'
Professor Racaniello:
'Your comments should be deleted because they don't contain a shred of truth. Your query "It is interesting that you mention Lipkin is now doing deep sequencing for XMRV, will that include the human ammaretroviruses the WPI and NCI discovered?" reveals that you don't understand the basis of deep sequencing. However I'm leaving the comment here so that others can see the misinformation that pervades discussion of CFS. '
The Hypotheses that HRGVs are in some way responsible for my condition, pain and suffering are simply that - theories. What you have said above might just as well apply to everything and anything. If/when Lombardi is retracted in full - what will there be to support the theory that it wasn't 'XMRV' it was 'HGRVs'? And what is there to support any theory relating to retroviruses and my condition?
If there is merit in the things people are posting by way of explanations for the 'failing' of the BWG and the 'failing' of those advancing 'XMRV' as the culprit - then we will once again have to wait for someone somewhere to publish a paper about it and for it to be subjected to scrutiny. I do not adhere to the theory that retroviral associations are being 'buried'. That notion is ridiculous. How many billions of $ have drug companies made from HIV alone? You think there is no incentive to investigate any of what you and others are advancing? If indeed what is being advanced on patient forums is even worth investigating.
I was listening to a recording of a 2010 talk from Annette Whittemore yesterday, who was speaking about 'XMRV' and what it could mean and the preventative actions to be taken by patients etc. One of the things she said was how much interest there was from drug companies since the Lombardi paper and how they were working collectively with WPI. I was left wondering where they are now. As well as wondering how this about change to 'HGRVs' suddenly suggests an 'aerosol' infectious route (Ottawa) when in that presentation Annette was saying 'XMRV' was not airborne? (
http://vimeo.com/9004628 It says Mikovits but it is Annette). These are all theories and I would suggest dangerous ones to be airing (no pun intended) without anything - like a published paper - to back them up.
I would suggest that what you need is for someone who promised new research was going to be published - to publish it instead of talking about their theories and making even more claims that patients take on board because they follow the scientist/expert and not the science. Personally, I think if someone is expert in their subject that they should be able to explain it simply to their audience but this seldom happens on forums when someone (without an identity or acknowledged credentials) advances theories they claim have validity. Further, even when a science paper is published it is often the interpretation of it and the incitement that can follow that causes the dissent and the lack of understanding.
I am a patient Currer and I am not a scientist and I do not understand half of what is posted by patient/experts as fact - but I am most pleased when they do their best to explain things to me - then I can seek another opinion or three and make my own mind up and ask questions along the way. Not that it really matters - because I am a patient - these things will happen with or without me but I do find it all quite interesting as and when I am able to try and understand. However, when I read/hear of patients claiming that 'science' is wrong and they have an alternate opinion that provides a better explanation that they are happy to expound with complete confidence - I am duly skeptical and try to seek answers (if I need/want them) elsewhere.
O dear. Probably gone off on one now. Should have waited until the morning - doh!