But Switzer earlier on has published studies concluding there is no association between XMRV and ME/CFS.
For Ila Singh it's the same, prostate cancer (+), ME/CFS (-).
Ila Singh now says, as you can read in the article on CFS Central, that she believes there is XMRV in prostate cancer, but not in ME/CFS.
Who tells you Switzer will not do the same. It seems a real risk to me. And he's from the CDC. What they say matters.
I agree about it being positive news, but not necessarily because of what Switzer is going to make of it, but because it hints the 0/0 studies might not allow to draw any conclusion.
For Ila Singh it's the same, prostate cancer (+), ME/CFS (-).
Ila Singh now says, as you can read in the article on CFS Central, that she believes there is XMRV in prostate cancer, but not in ME/CFS.
Who tells you Switzer will not do the same. It seems a real risk to me. And he's from the CDC. What they say matters.
I agree about it being positive news, but not necessarily because of what Switzer is going to make of it, but because it hints the 0/0 studies might not allow to draw any conclusion.
He mentions the monkey studies to give an explanation of the absense of virus in the blood, and explains how the virus quickly disappeared from the blood of the monkeys.
So this is a really important development, along with his other findings.
I believe that any advance in the science of XMRV is good news for the ME community, because it means we have more knowledge about XMRV and how to detect it.
The main thing stopping the ME/CFS research advancing is a lack of knowledge about how to successfully detect XMRV in the blood.
If Switzer's research advances the knowledge, then this can be used by all scientists, even Judy.
So if Switzer is genuinely interested in the science of XMRV, then I personally believe this is good news for us.
In the end I believe that the science will win over the politics (But then I do seem to have a very optimistic nature in relation to this subject!)