I can't really say anymore than than the fact that there is a lot of ongoing research going on behind the scenes among a lot of scientist some known, others unknown still being conducted even though things look as if they are not. It takes awhile for these matters to get resolved. There are twists and turns to every research study as in the case of Dr. Alter, for an example. I hope this clarifies any confusion.
I understand that, and I'm perfectly willing to wait for the studies to get published.
There are additional research studies being conducted by some of the authors of the original PLoS ONE study involving xmrv as well, that has not been published to date. They were not party to the study mentioned here:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/chr...nervous-system and the finding or conclusion that no xmrv was found in the spinal fluid in reference to the title of this thread. .
So maybe my confusion is with the news story, because it specifically says "Schutzer and colleagues, in an article published online by
Annals of Neurology...targeted spinal fluid based on the belief that if there is a neurological component to CFS as the symptoms suggest, then spinal fluid might contain a relevant pathogen such as a virus that is associated with the syndrome."
And it evens quotes Schutzer:
Spinal fluid is a liquid window to the brain, said Schutzer. It is an important area of the body to examine when there is abnormal central nervous system function and an infectious or immunologic cause is suspected.
So it seems apparent that the article wasn't talking about the PLoS ONE proteins in the CSF study.
I'm not asking you to clarify what's going on with this news article, Eco, in any way that compromises confidentiality. You can leave us to speculate until it shows up in the Annals of Neurology. I'm just saying that the article says it's the same group of researchers, but a different study than the PLoS one.