pollycbr125
Senior Member
- Messages
- 353
- Location
- yorkshire
this thread is getting hilarious ;-)
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Willem Butler of the dutch me-cvs stichting writes on their website that Kuppeveld is willing to accept the WPI offer.
http://www.me-cvs-stichting.nl/2797
Van Kuppeveld wil ook wel ingaan op dit aanbod van het WPI, verklaart hij desgevraagd. Heeft hij daar dan wel de tijd en de middelen voor? Eigenlijk niet, maar hij vindt dit zulk belangwekkend onderzoek dat hij daar wel ruimte voor wil maken. Het kost de wereld niet.
:tear:Let us first make sure that the technique is good, before we fly together to capture...
The WPI sends positive blood samples and reagents (chemicals) in sufficient numbers to McClure, and conversely receives like monsters from the United Kingdom.
:worried:It costs the world does not.
I may not be understanding this mangling correctly; in the bolded section, is this writer saying he called Kuppeveld, and Kuppeveld said he received a positive patient sample from the WPI, tested it using the Dutch methodology, and the result was positive for XMRV? If I understood correctly, that confirms Annette Whittemore's assertion that the WPI sent a positive sample to the Dutch group; the question remains then: why this is the first time anyone is hearing of it? And was this a WPI patient sample that Kuppeveld tested, or a positive control? I assume the former, but if so isn't it MAJOR news if the Dutch group found XMRV in a WPI sample?? (i.e. at least one case of validation?) If all these "if"s and assumptions are correct, then I can't understand why on earth the Dutch team did not include that 'little' nugget either in their original paper or -- if they ran the test for some reason after they sent the manuscript for publication -- in an addendum or (at minimum) press release.Moreover, the WPI a positive blood sample sent to Nijmegen, asking to see if they test their method could also detect XMRV. The WPI regrets that the Nijmegen team there in his article makes no mention of.
Call with Dr. Van Kuppeveld in Nijmegen. Yes, he had a positive sample of the WPI received and they were also tested. The result: positive! Van Kuppeveld evidence that their testing technique okay Sat
Yes, quick contact, quick!So let's hope that Van Kuppeveld quick contact Annette Whittemore.
If all these "if"s are correct, then I can't understand why on earth the Dutch team did not include that 'little' nugget"
in the bolded section, is this writer saying he called Kuppeveld, and Kuppeveld said he received a positive sample from the WPI, tested it using the Dutch methodology, and the result was positive for XMRV?
Maarten - Thanks for the clarification! So according to the Dutch blog report :worried:...WPI researchers have previously detected XMRV in patient samples from both Dr. Kerr’s and Dr. van Kuppeveld’s cohorts prior to the completion of their own studies, as they requested.
We have email communication that confirms both doctors were aware of these findings before publishing their negative papers.
In addition, Dr. van Kuppeveld asked for and received reagents and a positive patient sample to determine if his testing procedures could in fact detect XMRV in a positive blood sample before he published his paper. We wonder why these materials were not used in his study which also failed to detect XMRV.
means - fairly speaking: it is colloquial Dutch - that the writer or someone the writer knows (of) has phoned with Van K. who said that yes, he had received a positive sample from the WPI and that they had also tested it, and that the test was positive, which Van K. took as the proof that their own testing techniques were OK.
Jeez, Maarten, quit jumping up behind me like that !
So, Kuppevald's technique is ok. Kueppevald's samples are not.
So that means cohorts are different! Can't be excluded as a problem.