Another potential positive of a pharma getting involved is that if that they find XMRV in, 'only', say, 67% of samples, they may still trial any subsequent drugs on the 33% that tested negative (because that would still be a huge target market). If the drugs treat positives and negatives successfully, then it may support the contention that XMRV is simply more difficult to find in the negatives - or that something else organic is at play which can be controlled by the drugs. This might help keep some/all of the negatives out of the 'somataform' bucket that many are concerned about.
And I saw that they are also marketing drugs that contains AZT, so that really goes in the way of them wanting to find XMRV.Omerbasket, GSK makes antiretrovirals, so they would benefit if XMRV is the cause of CFS.
And I saw that they are also marketing drugs that contains AZT, so that really goes in the way of them wanting to find XMRV.
Still, I know they also make antidepressants, such as Wellbutrin, so I still doesn't say my theory is wrong, but I also think that it's much more likely that they do want to find XMRV.
To help resolve this quandary, Glaxo Smith Kline, a pharmaceutical firm in Research Triangle Park, NC, has funded a new study that will evaluate CFS patients with characteristics similar to the Science paper. CFS patients known to have XMRV from the Science paper will be used as a positive control. This study is designed to estimate the prevalence of XMRV in CFS subjects (selected by the modified Fukuda criteria and the Canadian criteria) and healthy control subjects.
Seems like good news, I thought I remembered some intimation that big pharma may be getting involved, possibly from one of Judy's talks?
Dr Mikovits has said on several occasions that one of her key roles is to develop a dialogue with pharmas and so this research could be one of the outcomes.
I think it's almost impossible to have CFS pateints with characteristics same as the Science paper - Because that might mean, for example, that if one has Hemoglobin 14.4, than the other must have 14.4 too. I don't know if it's possible to take a patient that has fatigue for more than 6 months (this particular one has it for 25 years) and another patient that has fatigue for more than 6 months (this particular one has it for 1.5 years) and say that "they have the SAME characteristics". Am I wrong?Seems like good news, I thought I remembered some intimation that big pharma may be getting involved, possibly from one of Judy's talks?
I wonder what is meant by 'similar' in the above statement, rather than the same?
Great news!
I think it's unheard of for a big establishment study to use the Canadian Criteria, so already the WPI have made a huge difference to research into ME, whatever the outcome of this study... i think it might be a step-change for our cause and maybe even moves us forwards in a huge leap!
If glaxo is involved they are convinced by the science study as are Abbot . These people evaluate studies for a living.They dont make many mistakes--any mistake can cost many million pounds or dollars
Right. They have shareholders to whom they answer. They don't want to chase a red herring.
Btw, GSK is a British company--but the UK has a magic anti-xmrv forcefield: what gives??
Pan-global profit protential breaks down all known force fields.