justinreilly
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,498
- Location
- NYC (& RI)
I agree.No probs mark.
It's an explanation for so many negative studies... but not an explanation for the initial positive study. If the WPI and Ruscetti were able to find significantly more positives from CFS patients than healthy controls and present consistent results, then it wouldn't have mattered whether they were finding XMRV or HGRV. Until the WPI are able to back up their claims under independently blinded conditions, then their claims are going to be treated sceptically by the media.
Maybe, but they certainly should not be treated more skeptically than anything out of the mouth of a proven charlatan like Simon Wessely's, whose badmouthing of ME patients was repeated uncritically by Mr. Cohen in the previous article "False Positives."Claims made on internet forums should always be treated sceptically!!