Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Even with only minimal testing is it not possible that there is a consistent yet not, on the face of it, startling abnormality which shows up in all who are infected with XMRV and which excluded them from participation in a Wessely related study?
If that is the case, might that not, at the end of the day, prove to be a very useful finding?
I hope you turn out to be right. Imagine how much easier it would be for doctors - and patients - to find a small abnormality on routine testing and then on that basis to know whether to run an XMRV test. I was wondering where you were finding a silver lining in this cloud. Thanks for clarifying.
Parvofighter, have you seen the way that if you Google "xmrv economist" your awesome comment comes out top, not the original Economist article itself?!! LOL.
Brilliant work...
BTW, you can go to the bottom of Parvo's letter and click on "Recommended" and it will add your vote!!
What they mean by it is part of what needs to be clarified. What do they (or Reeves, for that matter) mean by "organic disease", i.e. how did they screen for it? Normal procedure using Fukuda is only to screen out those who have certain diagnoses that can explain the major features of the disease. Since I doubt (especially based on what Orla said) that they did an extensive workup on any of these patients, I also have to doubt that they were able to make proper exclusionary diagnoses. So what criteria for organic disease did they use to exclude patients? If the patients had prior diagnoses for organic illnesses that are exclusionary, they wouldn't be at Wessely's clinic in the first place. So what were they checking for? Did he exclude patients for having organic disease symptoms? When were the exclusions done? Apparently the samples taken were not originally planned for this study, but rather stored blood samples by which Wessely would somehow have had to make sure his selection criteria were met (based on reviewing the patients' charts alone, I would assume).I kinda think that we may be misinterpreting what "eliminating those with organic disease " means... Orthostatic intolerance is a symptom - the cause is not found in many cases and so it is attributed to dysautonomia, or sometimes a cause may be identified such as of cardiovascular disease. If a cause is identified/verified, then these people would have "organic disease" and not be included.
but it certainly seems that they hand-picked people that had no measurable symptoms, which means they don't have ME/CFS. Right?
Yep. This is the take home message. In the absence of healthy controls and a single identification of xmrv in a human, the Imperial College/Wessely researchers can only claim that their study suggests one of two things:
1. There is absolutely no xmrv in the UK among anybody.
2. They are incapable of finding it with their methods.
That's it.
Granted, theoretically, SW could have rescreened samples from that cohort in October and November and discarded any that tested even faintly for XMRV, but that seems doubtful to me - he wouldn't have the ability to do that himself anyway (not a virologist, remember... although, now that I write that, it comes to mind that he does have certain pals known to us all who are virologists, some guy in Atlanta, WR, if I recall correctly... man, that would be diabolical).
ETA I am suggesting something unknown to SW. Everyone could have some small abnormality of unknown importance which caused him to reject the subject without ever knowing it was a key piece of the puzzle.
Yea, I'm hypothesizing my socks off here but it's very logical. I am seldom this logical - I have to revel in it.
I agree that the most likely explanation is a huge discrepancy in methodology