Comparative Tables of "replication" studies

[Dreambirdie]

Here's the WPI's comparative tables, which show just how far off the mark of ''replication" studies like Singh's and others really were.

Little wonder why they are getting negative results.

http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/06/comparison-of-methods-for-detection-and.html?spref=fb

 

[Deatheye]

The final presentation was by Wilfried Bieger (Munich,Germany). He mentioned their earlier studies to detect XMRV, which had been negative. His team had then collaborated with Judy Mikovits and set up a highly sensitive, specific and uncontaminated protocol for virus detection, sequencing of viral DNA and antibody testing with western blot. Viral DNA and RNA were not detected in fresh blood, but after cultivation of PBMCs for 6 weeks under stimulation and using partly co-culture with virus permissive LnCap cells, culture cells turned positive in some patients. Presence of XMRV was confirmed by sequencing XMRV specific DNA. There have been approximately 40% positives so far.

He went on to say that EBV reactivation seems common in ME/CFS. Anti-herpes viral therapy has promise of success.

http://www.investinme.org/IIME Con...e Report.htm

This goes kinda into the problem too. Dr. Bieger once had a negativ study and then started to work together with the WPI. Now he finds it.

 

[Dreambirdie]

I had not even heard of Bieger's study. Was that published?

 

[toddm1960]

No one repeats the proven methods from a new lab, only negitive studies are published. The original scientist isn't allowed to publish any studies further proving their work. Funding is cut to the new lab and research dies on the vine. Too bad I wasn't talking about Judy and WPI, this happened to Elaine and Wistar..........looks the same to me.

 

[Jemal]

I had not even heard of Bieger's study. Was that published?

I think the Bieger information is embargoed.