There are various levels of proof in science. What Stoye probably means by 'no definitive proof' is that a verifiable source of contamination in the original WPI study has not been found. Other study authors have suggested contamination studies that apparently WPI has not run, and unless WPI runs them and finds contamination there can be no definitive proof (I refer to tests such as IAP and using dUTP-UNG for nested PCR).
The type of proof that Stoye is inferring by saying that XMRV in CFS is a myth is the proof of a scientific consensus process, which might be considered a preponderance of evidence that a hypothesis is true (or false in this case).
But you don't have to prove exactly how a study is wrong to prove it is wrong. If multiple follow-on studies calibrated to similar or superior standards of accuracy to the original, fail to find the target organism, the preponderence of evidence proves that the original study was flawed. This is the development of a scientific consensus, which Stoye believes has proven XMRV in CFS to be a myth.
WPI does not have to agree, and this is a free country, they can continue studying XMRV as long as they like. But they may not make scientific claims about XMRV or their testing without violating accepted scientific ethics when a consensus view is accepted by the retroviral community. All researchers must accept the process of science, to have any credibility. You can't just accept scientific processes when they decide in your favor.
The WPI have given a reason for why they do not wish to use the IAP test, and that is that there are concerns that it can show false positives for contamination. I can't remember all the details, but they seemed legitimate to me when I read about them.
There seem to be scientific disagreements about which are the best tests to use to search for contamination.
Alter says that he has run better tests than anything Coffin has used.
XMRV is a novel virus which, if a human virus, is likely to exist in extremely low copy numbers in the blood.
Maybe established methodologies just can't detect it easily in the blood, whereas it is easier to detect it in tissues such as prostate cancer.
Switzer of the CDC has confirmed that this is the case, and has admitted that he is unable to detect the virus in the blood using existing technologies in XMRV+ prostate cancer patients.
To me, it seems like arrogance for some researchers to say that they have used superior technologies, and so because they can't find XMRV, then this is proof that it doesn't exist.
Consensus is not proof, it is just consensus. So, in which case, why are Stoye and others trying to close down XMRV research? It is one thing to declare your beliefs, but quite another to aggressively try to close down a legitimate area of research.
What is their agenda? It certainly isn't the welfare of CFS patients.
I would have thought that a better scientific approach to the situation would be to say that there are a number of very interesting studies that suggest that XMRV is a human retrovirus that some other researchers have not been able to replicate, so we will continue researching to see if we can get to the bottom of the differences.
Where is the scientific curiosity to get to the bottom of the subject?
Stoye has used some very strong and personal language against both the WPI and XMRV, and it doesn't seem to be a dispassionate, disinterested, objective scientific position that he is taking, or language that he is using.
Why are we reading all of these aggressive statements against XMRV researchers and the entire ME community by a whole range of scientists and researchers?
Why the need to accuse the ME community all the time?
This isn't science that we are seeing at play. It's politics.
We will find out all of the answers about XMRV.
All I ask for is for people to keep an open mind, and to remember who our friends are.
If XMRV does come to nothing, then we will need to stick together as a community, and stick up for those researchers who support us.
We will never hear from Coffin and Stoye again if XMRV disappears, but we will be hearing a heck of a lot from the likes of Wessely, White, Sharpe and Chalder.