G
Gerwyn
Guest
The aim of the study was to find out if XMRV existed in uk cfs patients thus this is replication not validation----using a different protocol is thus a huge departure from scientific protocol
they decided that a sample from one clinic was represetative of all patients in the uk without any evidence whatsoever knowing they used a unique diagnostic tool They then concluded that they were also representative of patients in the USA and Australia again with no cited evidence but based on subjective opinion and knowing that the WPI patients were assessed using different criterea That is some Science!
They implied that their patients had severe cfs like those in the WPI study because they were also"Markedly unwell" but were actually fit enough to take part in studies for neuroendocrine function---Severe CFS patients usually cant even attend clinics let alone partake in studies of this kind!
"The specificity of their PCR method was determined using DNA from LNcAP cells" XMRV CANNOT REPLICATE IN THESE CELLS
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEDICINE J VIROL APRIL 2009---EMILY C NOUF ET AL----Why choose DNA from cells that XMRV cant replicate in despite 24 hours exposure can XMRV cDNA bind with LNcAP cells------the answer is almost certainly no!
The second PCR amplification round contained identical base sequences to the first round----This gives fuzzy results at best----again a well known fact
The study only actually reported results from 8 patients who were apparently representative of their findings!
To "check for XMRV varients" they used PCR to amplify a sequence"conserved by MOST MLV viruses"
TWO POINTS
THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO DETECT XMRV VARIENTS as the sequence is not specific to XMRV at all
Obviously their original XMRV clone ,by their own tacit admission here, did not contain any sequences unique to XMRV otherwise they would not have needed this test
interestingly no study using this clone has been able to locate XMRV!
they decided that a sample from one clinic was represetative of all patients in the uk without any evidence whatsoever knowing they used a unique diagnostic tool They then concluded that they were also representative of patients in the USA and Australia again with no cited evidence but based on subjective opinion and knowing that the WPI patients were assessed using different criterea That is some Science!
They implied that their patients had severe cfs like those in the WPI study because they were also"Markedly unwell" but were actually fit enough to take part in studies for neuroendocrine function---Severe CFS patients usually cant even attend clinics let alone partake in studies of this kind!
"The specificity of their PCR method was determined using DNA from LNcAP cells" XMRV CANNOT REPLICATE IN THESE CELLS
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEDICINE J VIROL APRIL 2009---EMILY C NOUF ET AL----Why choose DNA from cells that XMRV cant replicate in despite 24 hours exposure can XMRV cDNA bind with LNcAP cells------the answer is almost certainly no!
The second PCR amplification round contained identical base sequences to the first round----This gives fuzzy results at best----again a well known fact
The study only actually reported results from 8 patients who were apparently representative of their findings!
To "check for XMRV varients" they used PCR to amplify a sequence"conserved by MOST MLV viruses"
TWO POINTS
THIS IS HARDLY LIKELY TO DETECT XMRV VARIENTS as the sequence is not specific to XMRV at all
Obviously their original XMRV clone ,by their own tacit admission here, did not contain any sequences unique to XMRV otherwise they would not have needed this test
interestingly no study using this clone has been able to locate XMRV!