XMRV: Necessary but not sufficient?
Hi, all.
Maybe this is something that someone has already posted, but just looking at the prevalence numbers in PWCs and in the general population, it looks to me as though we could conclude that in order to develop ME/CFS, it is necessary to have the XMRV virus on board, but having this virus on board is not sufficient to cause one to develop ME/CFS.
I think that would explain why the prevalence among PWCs is nearly 100%, but at the same time there is a significant number of people in the general population who test positive for XMRV, but are not ill.
It has been mentioned that perhaps the immune system must be weakened in order for a person to succumb to the virus and develop ME/CFS. That's what it looks like to me, too.
For what it's worth, I think this meshes well with the GD-MCB hypothesis, but I won't drone on about that here. If anyone is curious, the papers on it are posted on Cort's site.
Best regards,
Rich
Hi, all.
Maybe this is something that someone has already posted, but just looking at the prevalence numbers in PWCs and in the general population, it looks to me as though we could conclude that in order to develop ME/CFS, it is necessary to have the XMRV virus on board, but having this virus on board is not sufficient to cause one to develop ME/CFS.
I think that would explain why the prevalence among PWCs is nearly 100%, but at the same time there is a significant number of people in the general population who test positive for XMRV, but are not ill.
It has been mentioned that perhaps the immune system must be weakened in order for a person to succumb to the virus and develop ME/CFS. That's what it looks like to me, too.
For what it's worth, I think this meshes well with the GD-MCB hypothesis, but I won't drone on about that here. If anyone is curious, the papers on it are posted on Cort's site.
Best regards,
Rich