So I was right about there being multiple retroviruses. And I was wrong about just one of them causing CFS.
H Tina, no you weren't 'wrong'. The Alter/Lo paper did not use the same multi methods as the Lombardi group to detect XMRV, thea authors mention this themselves in the PNAS paper on page 5 & 6. A quote from the paper now follows..........
''However, in the study of Lombardi et al. and studies reviewed subsequently by Silverman et al.the evidence for XMRV infection in humans not only involved detection of viral nucleic acids using PCR, but also reported the detection ofviral antigens, detection of anti-viral antibodies, the ability to culture the virus in a prostate cancer cell line, the detection of gamma retrovirus particles by electron microscopy, and transmission of infection to macaques. In sum, none of the four studies that have failed to confirm the PCR evidence reported by Lombardi et al., nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study.''
The Alter/Lo paper was not a replication study
, so it's inabilty to find XMRV (and simply find multiple MULV's) was not meaning XMRV wasn't also there with the MULV's. As you know XMRV is an MULV class virus, and this new study simply found the presence of MULV's again, but this time not XMRV.
You could conclude you were wrong that CFS is not caused by XMRV (on its own) when there is a replication study done on Lombardi paper. This has yet not been done.
The FDA basically proved the existance of MULV's in CFS, without irrritating the CDC by proving them wrong and showing the government the WPI were correct, after all the FDA are a government agency. Alter's paper was an intelligent compromise job that didn't rock the US health departments's boat, yet simutaneously proved there is a murine retroviral link to CFS, therefore supporting the WPI.
To conclude. Two upcoming XMRV study results (not MULV's) will apparently find XMRV in CFS as the SCIENCE paper did and will NOT mention multiple MULV's. Still, the finding of MULV's has helped science, and Alter and Lo should be congratulated as it moves person's with CFS firmly into the immunology and out of the psychiatry camp. Which to put it mildly, is long over due.
i) Do CFS patients have XMRV + multiple MULV's? (All patients) No data on this thanks to Alter/Lo not replicating Lombardi group's methods in addition to their MULV findings which they should have done.
ii) Do CFS patients have XMRV or
multiple MULV's (As you are thinking Alter/Lo's paper alludes to, except it doesn't when one learns Alter/Lo didn't replicate Lombardi group's methods)
This is the big question over CFS......
Unless researchers replicate each others methods, we simply cannot know. So never rule out your original theory Tina, until the people with multiple MULV's who are negative for XMRV via Alter/Lo's methods, are re-tested via all the methods the Lombardi group used.
Then and only then could we conclude that not only XMRV causes CFS, but other MULV class viruses too.