• 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.

There's no such thing as a virus that causes chronic fatigue syndrome-Natural News

lostinthedesert

Killer, Clown, Priestess
Messages
115
Thanks for posting that, gg.

I had a bad feeling when I first saw how much excitement there was in the Fibro forums - not just this one - about MXRV.

Then, when I read the research, that feeling increased:
- the small numbers should not have even led to an announcement
- the control group was only SEVEN people *


Incorrect. From the original Science paper:

"In contrast, XMRV gag
sequences were detected in 8 of 218 (3.7%) PBMC DNA
specimens from healthy individuals."


- the sick group was not a general population of people with CFS, but a specific population from one place, just like the famous "Incline Valley Incident" [which never amounted to anything, did it?]

Incorrect again, well partially incorrect. BTW, it is Incline Village. Still, I believe the initial group tested included members of several different clusters around the USA. Yes the patients selected for this initial investigation were among the most ill but they were spread out over the country.

But mostly, that the doctors conveniently had an "allready approved drug" to give the patients who tested positive for either active virus or antibodies.

Where did you get that information? That is a pretty heavy statement to make without citing a source.

* Question: doesn't everybody have antibodies from the many harmless retroviruses out there? Maybe the research meant to say "they didn't find MXRV antibodies" [but it didn't say that].

As the Science quote above states, they were looking for viral DNA, not antibodies, in the 218 control samples. The subsequent, yet to be published. work involves additional antibody testing.


Peace,
S