BWG Statement Dec. 27th

[shannah]

Dec. 27: Statement from the Blood XMRV Scientific Working Group

by The CFIDS Association of America on Monday, December 27, 2010 at 11:52am

The Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has discussed the findings from the four studies published in Retrovirology on December 20, 2010. These studies confirmed the importance of carefully checking XMRV/MLV related-positive results for any evidence of contamination with mouse genetic materials. The Working Group is proceeding with phase III which will evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of multiple laboratory assays that test for the RNA and/or DNA of XMRV/MLVs or antibodies to these viruses. All laboratories have and will continue to apply best practices and check to the best of their ability that no contamination with mouse DNA is present before reporting any positive results. These reports also substantiate the importance of employing tests that not only detect viral DNA and/or RNA but can also detect the virus itself (culture) and/or an immunological reaction to the virus. These tests are reflected in the Working Group planned phase III study."


For more information about the Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group and its studies, please view our webinar recording from Dec. 17, 2010 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HynlkG0cVc that provides an overview of the studies planned and data accumulated so far.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...rv-scientific-working-group/10150116408850539

 

[shannah]

Seems a little strange this statement is coming from the CAA with no outside link to an official statement from the BWG doesn't it?

 

[Esther12]

It reads like a statement that lots of people had to agree to, so not much was said.

 

[shannah]

Well I think the statement itself is very reassuring to the community that nothing contained in the papers is discouraging the BWG from continuing with their plan and implementing phase lll. I think it also alerts the larger scientific community that the participants are aware of, have and will continue to be vigilant about contamination issues.

All in all, I think it's a great statement for those of us who question how much damage these papers did other than to the general public and the patient community with the media frenzy.

But again, I wonder why this statement was released through the CAA.

 

[shannah]

This preamble was just posted on their FB page;

"With the publication of four papers in Retrovirology about sources of contamination in studies of XMRV and other murine leukemia virus-related viruses (see http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/retrovirology1210.asp), the CFIDS Association asked the chairmen of the Blood XMRV Scientiific Research Working Group to comment about the impact of these papers on future phases of the group's work. This statement was received on Dec. 27, 2010"

 

[busybee]

Well I think the statement itself is very reassuring to the community that nothing contained in the papers is discouraging the BWG from continuing with their plan and implementing phase lll. I think it also alerts the larger scientific community that the participants are aware of, have and will continue to be vigilant about contamination issues.

I agree Shannah

 

[Cort]

Well I think the statement itself is very reassuring to the community that nothing contained in the papers is discouraging the BWG from continuing with their plan and implementing phase lll. I think it also alerts the larger scientific community that the participants are aware of, have and will continue to be vigilant about contamination issues.

All in all, I think it's a great statement for those of us who question how much damage these papers did other than to the general public and the patient community with the media frenzy.

But again, I wonder why this statement was released through the CAA.

Probably because they wanted to get the word out to the patients and CAA members are part of the BWG and using the CAA ensures that the ensures message will get out to a lot of patients which it obviously has.

The change here that I see is that they're talking about culturing which it didn't appear, at least from phase 2, that they were going to do. That's really good news since that's the test that the WPI has found is the most consistent.