Psychology Today. What are you thinking? How can you publish an article that is full of errors, opinion presented as fact, and a sales-spiel? Shouldnt this have a caption saying advertisement?
Dr Teitelbaum continually refers to XMRV as a virus, which is incorrect
a)In a recent newsletter I discussed the XMRV virus
b) We have been treating viral infections (and many other infections) as one of the cornerstones of resolving CFS for decades. The recently reported research on the XMRV virus, while a useful new finding that will help in our efforts to find effective CFS treatments, is in essence but one more documented infection.
XMRV is only the 3rd human retrovirus known. It is similar to HIV, which is associated with AIDS and HTLV-1, which is associated with a rare form of blood dsycrasia known as Adult T-cell Leukemia/lymphoma. These are on a quite different level of significance from your run-of-the-mill viruses that Teitelbaum directs the supplements and protocol; he sells at.
Sweeping generalizations of opinion are presented as fact:
c) the larger picture of what is happening in CFS, with XMRV simply being one of many infections and problems in this illness
d) Remember that the I in SHINE stands for Infections with multiple treatments that help treat viral infections (such as XMRV) included
There is NO scientific basis for these opinions. XMRV is a retrovirus that was only discovered this year. The treatments for it are as of yet unknown.
Dr Teitelbaum tries to sell his product throughout, including links
e) there are 5 references to his SHINE protocol and one to his treatment center, with links provided.
Dr Teitelbaum claims success in treating CFS without substantiating the claim:
f) "Our research shows that 91% of patients treated with the SHINE protocol improve, and many get well."
g) With effective treatment already available
h) "But we choose to not be distracted to reduce our focus to only a single infection type, when there are so many that we can effectively treat to help you get well now."
Only one study from 91 93 is presented as proof of Dr Teitelbaums success in treating CFS.
It has not been presented in a respected scientific journal, nor peer-reviewed, nor the results replicated by other reputable scientists
Only 64 patients were studied, none of whom had post-exertional malaise one of the hallmarks of CFS
46 patients were suspected of having other problems such as hypothyroidism
The wording in the study continually mixes CFS with chronic fatigue (ie daily tiredness or other illnesses)
If he indeed has had any success, one would expect published studies reputable scientific journals, peer-reviews and replication. 16 years have passed since that study where are current scientifically valid studies? If there were effective treatment available, it would not be the exclusive domain of Dr Teitelbaum and 17 million or more world wide would not be suffering with this disease. He may have success with getting rid of tiredness, but has not demonstrated anything to do with CFS.
The one good paragraph in the whole article is
"The XMRV research also offers other benefits, such as attracting media attention, and helps make it even clearer how real and devastating CFS is. This may offer a bit more to silence the nitwits who like to claim CFS is all in your mind (though I would not count on it, as they have ignored reams of earlier research showing CFS/FMS to be very real illnesses). My concern is that this not blind us to the rest of the research in the field, which would cause much harm to those with the illness."
Hopefully, this additional piece of research on the biological nature of ME/CFS will be the final nail in the coffin of any unfounded views of it being a psychiatric illness.
As to concerns about the discovery of XMRV leading to other research in the field being ignored, it seems unlikely and an unwarranted concern. The WPI team has exhibited the utmost professionalism, starting with working collaboratively with the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic, along with support from the University of Nevada. The study was published in Science, the most prestigious scientific journal, with rigorous peer-review. They are eager to find a treatment for ME/CFS and are willing to work collaboratively with all respected scientists in the field.
Its articles like this that cause much harm to people with ME/CFS, not the discovery of XMRV and future research in the field.