You can view the page at http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?179-Altered-Realities-How-to
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 (FM), 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.
Nice write up Cort:Retro smile:
But notice that they let the dutch negative study be published even though possitive samples had been found in it - but they are not letting a possitive study be published
Great stuff but I'm compelled to add that in the end the long-suffering patient population loses.
We all feel that XMRV needs to be nailed down once and for all. It may not the cause, or a major contributor (it seems increasingly less likely these days) but the science needs to be published, debated and settled. It's possible the CDC study, despite rumors of it not finding XMRV at all, may hold a key piece of evidence or methodological deviation that helps to prove the case for causality of XMRV in CFS. Science if full of serendipitous discovery and apparent contradictions that turn out to be mutually-consistent pieces of information. Who knows? Not the government "officials" to be sure.
In the end the science had better carry the day, not the politicking and until that time comes patients continue to lose as we have for decades.
I urge our government officials to let our papers go and the science will take care of itself. We the taxpayers footed the bill for this work. The longer you hold back information the more suspicions of impropriety will be raised.
Well...I think now we know why the FDA and NIH findings were "leaked". I guess they knew this was coming. It is ridiculous that the DHHS is allowed to withhold this information.
I agree. I think the research community loses but not being able to see what these researchers are doing it and how its working out for them. These are supposedly some of the top labs in the world - labs that other researchers would use to inform their efforts - and now it's all under wraps. God knows how long it will take to get issues sorted out; meanwhile researchers will continue on without the benefit of that knowledge.
Again what strikes me is how tricky this bug is! I guess these are some of the 'best and the brightest' and its got them tied up in knots. I would love to hear what Coffin and Goff and Racaniello are saying about this turn of events in private. (I can guess what Mikovits and Ruscetti are )
Thanks for continuing to track and summarize this story, Cort! My only question is about your statements here:
"At the end it's astonishing - at least to this layman - how little resolution there is to the XMRV question 8 months after the publication of the initial paper. The problem was reportedly not simply that the papers disagreed; it was that they disagreed in a manner which didn't lend any clarity to the XMRV question; ie even after looking at them it is impossible to tell who was right and why....
To me, this seems like your guess only. When top scientists assess these papers, however, it may well to possible to tell who was right and why. That to me seems more likely.
My guess is that the hold may be both a function of temporarily saving face, re-framing the study or studies which were unsuccessful, and in preparing for the consequences of the news which they will be releasing...
In an email between scientists familiar with the situation, viewed by the Wall Street Journal, a researcher said the two teams were asked to put their papers on hold because senior public-health officials wanted to see consensusor at least an explanation of how and why the papers reached different conclusions, said the people familiar with the situation.