Nature.com report that Alter paper reviewers want "additional studies"

[dean]

Nature puts out story with headline "Chronic fatigue findings were held back" and says that the PNAS reviewers of Alter paper are asking for the additional studies before it will publish the paper.

If true this is big...... additional studies will be funded now for sure.... This is becoming too hot for any under the rug type sweep.....


http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100702/full/news.2010.332.html?s=news_rss


"Monroe (Stephen Monroe, director of the CDC's Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology) called the delay a "strategic pause", initiated after CDC officials learned of a contradictory study by the NIH and FDA team, reported at a meeting by NIH researcher Harvey Alter. Although a PNAS spokeswoman reportedly told The Wall Street Journal that the study had been accepted for publication, press officers at PNAS refused to comment on the matter today. One scientist familiar with the issue said that the journal's editor-in-chief, cell biologist Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley, sent the paper out for further review after government agencies requested the publication delay. That review came back with requests for additional studies, the scientist says."

 

[judderwocky]

Nature puts out story with headline "Chronic fatigue findings were held back" and says that the PNAS reviewers of Alter paper are asking for additional studies......

If true this is big...... additional studies will be funded now for sure.... This is becoming too hot for any under the rug type sweep.....


http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100702/full/news.2010.332.html?s=news_rss


"Monroe called the delay a "strategic pause", initiated after CDC officials learned of a contradictory study by the NIH and FDA team, reported at a meeting by NIH researcher Harvey Alter. Although a PNAS spokeswoman reportedly told The Wall Street Journal that the study had been accepted for publication, press officers at PNAS refused to comment on the matter today. One scientist familiar with the issue said that the journal's editor-in-chief, cell biologist Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley, sent the paper out for further review after government agencies requested the publication delay. That review came back with requests for additional studies, the scientist says."

This is why i updated the petition text:

I am writing today to request your action on a public health concern. Recently a link has been found to the debilitating disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and a retrovirus, X-MRV. X-MRV has also been implicated by recent research in the development of aggressive prostate cancer. Since the original findings published in the prestigious journal Science, several groups have produced conflicting results. The Wall Street Journal has reported however, that the NIH and FDA were able to confirm the findings (underneath the direction of the NIH scientist who discovered the Hepatitis C virus, Harvey Alter). The Wall Street Journal has also reported the studies are being WITHHELD and subjected to additional tests due to the failure of the CDC to come to similar conclusions. No statement has been made as to the extent or nature of these additional procedures and tests.

Tell the DHHS to allow the NIH and FDA to publish their papers without undue procedures and hurdles. Preventing these papers from being published diminishes the trust of CFS Patient groups in the CDC and its willingness to deal honestly with this disease. To allow CFS patients and those with Prostate Cancer the best hope of fighting their illness, we must have the best scientific information that our government is capable of producing. Allow the findings to be released with all speed and tell the DHHS to stop playing politics with science.

Thank You,

 

[Lesley]

I took this to mean that the journal's peer reviewers have asked Alter's group to do additional work prior to publication. The conflicting CDC study basically lead them to seek additional assurance that the study's conclusions are correct. This is consistent with what has been written elsewhere about the status of the paper. It is also what happened with the Science paper. The reviewers wanted more experiments to be done to support the conclusions in the paper.

I don't think this article is referring to new, separate studies.

 

[dean]

The petition requests to "Tell the DHHS to allow the NIH and FDA to publish their papers without undue procedures and hurdles."

I appreciate the thrust of the petition and think it could be useful, however it seems that the non publication of the paper is the result of the PNAS asking for futher work. At least according to the source in the nature article this is the reason now and not the result of any DHHS decision....

 

[judderwocky]

The petition requests to "Tell the DHHS to allow the NIH and FDA to publish their papers without undue procedures and hurdles."

I appreciate the thrust of the petition and think it could be useful, however it seems that the non publication of the paper is the result of the PNAS asking for futher work. At least according to the source in the nature article this is the reason now and not the result of any DHHS decision....

And you don't think the DHHS could have influenced that? How many of those reviewers rely on grants coming out of the DHHS office? You really think that is below them?

The fact is... no explanation has been given about why these new tests were suddenly needed. They have not been quantified.

IF i were the DHHS, and I knew patient groups and researchers (like virology.ws) were ticked about interference in the scientific process, then I would want them to think the researchers that did the paper were the ones pulling it.

It doesn't add up. It was meant to be published, and is now falling on "internal" pressures. This is not how science works. I appreciate that you don't think this is the right way to voice your Opinion.. but there is no way for me to me to believe that the organization that oversees the NIH has had nothing to do with this and that this is not the result of internal pressure.

This stands to invalidate years of research and poor funding. This is a PR disaster they are standing on the mouth of.

 

[dean]

I don't think this article is referring to new, separate studies.

With headlines like this in Nature about a putative positive study being held back because of outside pressure, (no matter how "scientific" the reason ) it definitely means more money, I think there will be more funding for other studies, , perhaps even money coming from CDC......
It might be like AIDS when Rock Hudson became ill with AIDS. The money dam broke open.....

 

[judderwocky]

With headlines like this in Nature about a putative positive study being held back because of outside pressure, (no matter how "scientific" the reason ) it definitely means more money, I think there will be more funding for other studies, , perhaps even money coming from CDC......
It might be like AIDS when Rock Hudson became ill with AIDS. The money dam broke open.....

thats just it though... when its "outside pressure" it ceases being peer review... Outside forces can tamper with the peer review process... think of the drug companies... the issue is not that the reviewers want additional informaiton... its that they have "suddenly" changed their minds about a study they were ok with before... this SCREAMS tampering... at least with the review process..



illl put it this way... something stinks... and as long as thats the case im rubbing their nose in it.

 

[dean]

thats just it though... when its "outside pressure" it ceases being peer review... Outside forces can tamper with the peer review process... think of the drug companies... the issue is not that the reviewers want additional informaiton... its that they have "suddenly" changed their minds about a study they were ok with before... this SCREAMS tampering... at least with the review process..it

We are on the same page.....if this was about some virus in mouse baldness....it would not have it sent out for more action. I agree... Pure science is supposed to be apolitical, real science as practiced in the world is not.... esp when it has impact on health policy....

 

[judderwocky]

We are on the same page.....if this was about some virus in mouse baldness....it would not have it sent out for more action. I agree... Pure science is supposed to be apolitical, real science as practiced in the world is not.... esp when it has impact on health policy....

its a strange thing... money in this country drives the research... and distorts it.

 

[Hope123]

With headlines like this in Nature about a putative positive study being held back because of outside pressure, (no matter how "scientific" the reason ) it definitely means more money, I think there will be more funding for other studies, , perhaps even money coming from CDC......
It might be like AIDS when Rock Hudson became ill with AIDS. The money dam broke open.....

Don't count on it. Scientists might just assume XMRV or anything involved with CFS is too controversial to touch and look elsewhere. Many don't want to see their NIH funding affected and who wants to deal with the media/ government interference and sick desperate patients? Easier to pick an already accepted topic of research and go with it. This has been the case for years with CFS research; it's only recently we've had some new blood doing CFS research. Otherwise, it's the same dedicated group of clinicians/ researchers. We need to continue to put pressure on the government. I'm not a cynical person really but events like this are making me more so.

I'll be more at ease if DHHS allows both this copy and the final "corrected" copy of Alter's work to be published -- especially if Alter's later paper turns out to be negative for XMRV in CFS. Otherwise, it would still leave me with the thought that the science has been tampered with intentionally.

 

[Eric Johnson from I&I]

Lesley's interpretation is right. More studies means more experiments to be included in this paper.

 

[dannybex]

I took this to mean that the journal's peer reviewers have asked Alter's group to do additional work prior to publication. ...This is consistent with what has been written elsewhere about the status of the paper. It is also what happened with the Science paper. The reviewers wanted more experiments to be done to support the conclusions in the paper.

Interesting Lesley...I didn't know the original Science paper had to go through similar hoops.

 

[natasa778]

I took this to mean that the journal's peer reviewers have asked Alter's group to do additional work prior to publication. ...This is consistent with what has been written elsewhere about the status of the paper. It is also what happened with the Science paper. The reviewers wanted more experiments to be done to support the conclusions in the paper.

yes, the big difference here being that the Science paper had to go through the loops BEFORE it was accepted for publication - that was all part of the review process.

Alter paper has ALREADY been reviewed and accepted.

oh well...

 

[Bob]

I took this to mean that the journal's peer reviewers have asked Alter's group to do additional work prior to publication. The conflicting CDC study basically lead them to seek additional assurance that the study's conclusions are correct. This is consistent with what has been written elsewhere about the status of the paper. It is also what happened with the Science paper. The reviewers wanted more experiments to be done to support the conclusions in the paper.

I don't think this article is referring to new, separate studies.

This was my initial reaction... But with the government involved, asking for a resolution with the conflicting CDC study, I guess we need to be a little bit cynical here.

It would be very unusual for a journal to ask for additional samples to be tested (i.e. for a paper to be fundamentally altered), but it's not impossible, especially if the government are involved and putting pressure on them.

 

[Doogle]

The CDC ploy of getting the positive NIH and FDA Science study withheld from publication after being accepted, then reviewed asking for more experimentation because the results didn't agree with their poorly done negative CDC study is censorship and interference.

This is unacceptable to me, and I hope most of the others (including the CAA) reading about this abomination. We lose by not having the immediate benefit of the data from the positive study, and risk further tampering or even cancellation of the positive study from political influence by the CDC. Please write our representatives in government and the HHS to object to the withholding of the study and demand that a formal investigation of malfeasance by the CDC and government entities that perpetrated this.

I believe this is probably the most important issue to solve this damn disease I have seen in my 23 year experience with the illness. W. Reeves is trying to get his revenge as many have predicted, please don't let him get away with it and bury us with this illness for another 20 years.

 

[Recovery Soon]

yes, the big difference here being that the Science paper had to go through the loops BEFORE it was accepted for publication - that was all part of the review process.

Alter paper has ALREADY been reviewed and accepted.

oh well...

EXACTLY. That's why something rotten smells in Denmark.

 

[bullybeef]

Who believes that Alter will stick to his guns on this, or will he relinquish his study?

 

[Bob]

The CDC ploy of getting the positive NIH and FDA Science study withheld from publication after being accepted, then reviewed asking for more experimentation because the results didn't agree with their poorly done negative CDC study is censorship and interference.

Do we know that this interference is due to the CDC?
I thought that the interference was coming from the Department of Health?
What information do we have about this?

 

[anciendaze]

plausible sequence of events

Before I start suspecting people of lying, I always try to fit their public statements into a consistent pattern. I do not have inside information, so I must take public statements and actions as my guides. Here's one possible interpretation:

1) Harvey Alter is told his paper has satisfied the reviewers it was sent to.
2) He now feels comfortable discussing this at a closed forum, because nothing stands between it and publication.
3) The conflict between results by CDC, NIH/FDA goes up the chain of command at HHS.
4) As a result of criticisms voiced in closed meetings with people who were not original peer reviewers, Alter decides to add some explanation or results to his paper. This means the changes must go back through the review process.
5) NIH modifies a page on its web site in response to CDC criticism.
6) Once the possibility mentioned in the changes appears, peer reviewers ask for additional studies.

I think this fits facts extremely well.

 

[hvs]

Remember that by making extraordinary demands of Lombardi and Mikovits, Science made their paper incredibly water-tight.
This could be exactly what happens here. The paper only becomes more of definitive home run that moves this discussion into a new phase and halts the silly negative studies based on bogus cohorts and collection/lab techniques.