Gerwyn said about this study:
A DNA plasmid and no amplification of samples oh goody now I wonder why they didn,t find anything?
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing time and time again and expecting the results to be different!
Now for my thoughts:
1) As I understand it - and correct me if I'm wrong - This study again used the reagent VP62 and only this reagent to find XMRV. They claim in their abstract that their assay had "100% specificity". But XMRV is a retrovirus and those tend to mutate a lot, especially if you're checking for it in China. So wouldn't 100% specificity for VP62 and only for it - as I understand their assays had (and again - please correct me if I'm wrong) - mean that if there was "XMRV" in those patients, but it has mutated just a tiny bit, and it still has 99.9% similarity to VP62, they wouldn't detect it?
I understand that VP62 was given to them by the WPI, ut I guess it was given to them a long time ago or with other intentions - cause Dr. Mikovits already said that using VP62, which is a clone and not from a clinical sample, and using samples that would detect nly such VP62's, is a major mistake.
Anyway, I guess that even Myra McClure would say that this study doesn't say anyhthing, because it used only PCR (and she said that she agrees with Dr. Ruscetti that PCR cannot be used as the single assay).
2) Not that I think that it would explain the complete absence of XMRV - But again they used the Fukuda criteria alone, without using the Canadian Consensus Criteria.
I wonder what the publication of this stupid study says about the quality of the journal "Virology". Anyway, this study is another study that doesn't tell us anything. Anything! It could be that 63 of these 65 patients were actually carriers of XMRV of other MLV-related viruses, and it could be that none of them had it. This study says nothing. Again.
