The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

[gracenote]

this turned into a very exciting day

This thread has only been active for about 12 hours and it has 268 posts and 6825 views. Wow. And great, great finds. You guys are the best.

Hey Kim,

What are you still doing up? It's late here in California and I'm going to bed. Get some sleep. We need you tomorrow.

----------
ETA: Good night, Kim. Sleep well.

 

[Countrygirl]

I have just started reading this thread after hearing the news last night and find you already have 270 posts. Apologies if you have already dealt with my following query.

I have just listened to Dr Judy saying in a recording that, 'We have worked with U.K. cohorts....... ' and she continues to say that she is very excited about the impact that the research findings will have on the U.K. M.E. community who are labelled psychiatrically ill. Why be excited if the U.K. cohorts she referred to were negative for XMRV? Did she not say that the XMRV results from the 500 London patients were similar to those announced in the Science article.? I remember her being quoted as saying that the same percentages 'held up'. Can anyone else confirm this? This would make complete nonsense of Wessely's claim that there is no XMRV to be found in the U.K. M.E. population.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

UK ME Association Facebook Wall

"The Imperial College research group wouldn't waste its time on junk science."

Tony Britton, MEA Press and Publicity​

UK ME Association Facebook Wall

http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=68630803256#/group.php?gid=68630803256

Tony Britton [MEA Press and PR] Not a final judgement. Other replication studies in the pipeline, says ME Association
ME Association statement - XMRV: UK research group fails to replicate American findings
www.meassociation.org.uk

Commenter 1 yet you describe the study group as "highly reputable" (bet many CFS/ME sufferers had a laugh at that one, anthing with wessely involved is certainly NOT reputable)...do I detect fence sitting here ME association?

Tony Britton Absolutely not. The Imperial College research group wouldn't waste its time on junk science.

Commenter 1 sorry, I dont fully understand your response, you are saying this is a "highly reputable study"??? am I right? clarification would be welcomed

Commenter 2 Oh dear. The MEA sits on the fence again! Why has no one from the MEA bothered to point out to the media that this study uses patients diagnosed by a group of psychiatrists whose patients more than likely do not have ME, as the criteria used only requires tiredness? I thought the MEA were different from AFME when I joined a few months a ago but obviously they are not. We need advocacy groups who will challenge people like Wessley and the bad science their theories are based on. But instead the two main charities would rather not rock the boat.

Commenter 2 On the other hand Invest in ME have made a worthwhile statement about this study.

http://www.investinme.org/Article-381 BBC XMRV Statement January 2010.htm

It is a shame the MEA have not followed suit.

Suzy Chapman According to the unofficial summary published by Dr Charles Shepherd on behalf of the MEA following the APPG on ME meeting on 2 December:

"XMRV was discussed in some detail at the Medical Research Council Expert Group Workshop on November 19/20 where there were four UK researchers present who are actively involved in XMRV research:

" Dr Jonathan Stoye - National Institute for Medical Research... See More
Dr Kate Bishop - NIMR
Dr Jonathan Kerr - St George's Hospital
Dr Suzanne Hagan - Glasgow Caledonian University

"There are several other UK virologists involved with XMRV research as well - including Prof Greg Towers at University College London, whom CS recently met for an afternoon discussion.

[Ed: No mention of Prof McClure/Wessely.]

"So replication studies and other XMRV research is taking place, or is about to take place, here in the UK.

"MERUK plus IRISH ME TRUST has just funded an XMRV replication study in Sweden.

"The MEA Ramsay Research Fund has money available for UK studies - but money does not appear to be an immediate problem in the UK.

"It looks as though there may even be some early results from replication studies before the end of the year."


Four questions for the MEA:

1] How long has Dr Charles Shepherd been aware of the McClure/Wessely study that has been carried out at Imperial College London and published, yesterday?

2] Professor Chris Mathias, of Imperial College London (where the study was carried out), was listed as a participant in the MRC's December CFS/ME Research Workshop.

Was the McClure/Wessely ICL study discussed at the MRC's December CFS/ME Research Workshop?

3] If Dr Shepherd was aware prior to 5 January, why has this McClure/Wessely study not previously been noted?

4] To which study was Dr Shepherd referring when he wrote:

"It looks as though there may even be some early results from replication studies before the end of the year."

I look forward to receiving a response to all four questions.


Edit: A copy has now also been sent direct to Neil Riley, Chair, ME Association Board of Trustees; Tony Britton, MEA Press and Publicity

 

[Alexia]

I also find it very suspicious how fast the paper was reviewed and published... my husband is an associate professor at the university and when he sends a paper to be published it takes months to be reviewed and more some weeks to be published. Whatever the journal he has never seen a paper being reviewed and published so fast!!

" Editor: Douglas F. Nixon, University of California San Francisco, United States of America

Received: December 1, 2009; Accepted: December 4, 2009; Published: January 6, 2010"

 

[Mark]

British Scientists Fail (To Find, To Replicate, To Convince, ME/CFS patients...)

Scientists' claim to have found the cause of ME is 'premature':
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...und-the-cause-of-me-is-premature-1859003.html

Or...Scientists' claims based on failure of their own study 'premature, misleading and politically motivated'.

I have written people I know with ME/CFS to make sure they understand that the results of this study are as predicted from this group of researchers, here's what I wrote them...

Simon Wessely, who led the study, told the forum at aboutmecfs.org via email about a month ago that he is no longer active in CFS/ME research and hasn't been for some time. So much for that. It's perhaps worth declaring the obvious interest here: observers have noted that Wessely might end up in prison if the results of this and/or other studies were positive.

We wanted (but failed) to launch a media campaign to predict and pre-empt this inevitable study which begins/continues the campaign to use UK patients as a political football. Freedom of Information requests have - I believe - been placed on the official UK studies to establish the details of patient criteria, testing methodology and personnel involved, but this unpublicised study was slipped in under the radar and it is not one of the 15+ studies officially announced (including at least 3 other UK studies), and appears to be unpublished (ie unscrutinised by scientific publication). In the UK they will claim differences based on different patient populations and definitions of CFS/ME, but UK patients should be aware that UK CFS samples have already tested positive on the original WPI tests and that results are said to be holding up in a cohort of 500 London patients.. Since the Wessely study failed to find any XMRV anywhere, as did the German prostate cancer study, all the study really suggests is that their testing methodology failed to find whatever the WPI found. By the way, of the 2 publicly available tests in the US, the Co-operative Diagnostic test is also finding no positives at all (and crowing of a guarantee of "no false positives"), whereas the licenced VPI Diagnostics test is believed to be finding 50-70% positives. The tests use fundamentally different methodologies so there may be some subtlety to what the WPI test is finding - we will know more on Jan 22 when Dr Mikovits lectures live.

For now, the headline
British Scientists Fail to Replicate
can safely be abbreviated to
British Scientists Fail

 

[Mark]

Wessely has published over 500 blah blah

Yeah that's true. He fair churns it out; he was the first in the world to replicate this study because he's smart and uses Word templates, according to which the default conclusion is that he failed to find whatever it was the other study found, and so did all his mates.

 

[muffin]

Go to the PLOSONE site where the stupid study is, register as a user and then add your one star negative rating and your comment about this stupid study. OPEN YOUR MOUTHS! Take your shot at this study and make sure that everyone knows that if it is a WESSELY STUDY IT WILL BE NEGATIVE REGARDLESS - You UK people have to take this dumb SOB on and damage his credentials, over and over and over. Just as we in the US are doing to the "Wessely twin moron", William Reeves. Discredit these psychobabblers everywhere you can.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008519

 

[Katie]

I'm only up to page 21 but I wanted to write this about the media in the UK. A fantastic journalist called Nick Davies wrote a book called Flat Earth News, here's the general scoop.


The UK media is a skeletal shell of what it used to be. The numbers of journalists are pruned each financial years and the amount of content for supplements, the web, print and podcasts goes up and up. Journalists are also in a race against each other to get stories up, there's no time and a pressure to produce multiple stories. This is called Churnalism. They read news stories on the wire, add one opinion for balance and put it up. Nothing gets investigated. In our case, they replicate McClure's words, add in Shepards and that's it, the BBC is first, they win. This is how PR stories or rueters or Associated Content make it into the "news".


This could also work in our favour. Deliver a journalist a juicy, loud and clear prepackaged response to Wessely where they have to dedicate very little time to it and it's got important names in it (Dr, prof, MP etc) and give them some numbers to ring round if they need extra comments and boom, you're in the news. It's easy, feed the machine. Not too long either, look at the length of BBC Online articles, they are all similar sizes, it's got to fit in there.


The ME Association could be doing this, any ME group could be doing this, official or not, just get the right sounding names in it, like Vernon, like Mikovits, or even Shephard.


I'm going back to read the rest of this thread. But don't expect anyone in the mainstream media, not even quality papers, to do anything but the most superficial glance. It's not the journalists fault, but the bottom line drives information and investigation. They don't function as a check and balance anymore, they are a tool of the government, PR companies and capitalism. Read Flat Earth News for a moderate, passionate and evidence based account of the state of the media in this country.

 

[muffin]

Katie: And this is why you UK people (and us US people) must comment on the article at the www.plosone.org site. Nail them so that it is out there for others to read. Do this NOW. Read the study and pick it apart and show how it is just garbage psychobabble stuff that Wessely and company push out the door to damage the ME sick. Counter the methodology, etc. If you let this study in this online article go by without commenting on it, then others will pick it up and run with it. Show dissent.
I see that there are now two comments on the site that disagree with the study. Therre should be more on that site dismissing this study.

 

[muffin]

Everything you said is correct. But..

Scientists' claim to have found the cause of ME is 'premature':
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...und-the-cause-of-me-is-premature-1859003.html

Or...Scientists' claims based on failure of their own study 'premature, misleading and politically motivated'.

I have written people I know with ME/CFS to make sure they understand that the results of this study are as predicted from this group of researchers, here's what I wrote them...

Simon Wessely, who led the study, told the forum at aboutmecfs.org via email about a month ago that he is no longer active in CFS/ME research and hasn't been for some time. So much for that. It's perhaps worth declaring the obvious interest here: observers have noted that Wessely might end up in prison if the results of this and/or other studies were positive.

We wanted (but failed) to launch a media campaign to predict and pre-empt this inevitable study which begins/continues the campaign to use UK patients as a political football. Freedom of Information requests have - I believe - been placed on the official UK studies to establish the details of patient criteria, testing methodology and personnel involved, but this unpublicised study was slipped in under the radar and it is not one of the 15+ studies officially announced (including at least 3 other UK studies), and appears to be unpublished (ie unscrutinised by scientific publication). In the UK they will claim differences based on different patient populations and definitions of CFS/ME, but UK patients should be aware that UK CFS samples have already tested positive on the original WPI tests and that results are said to be holding up in a cohort of 500 London patients.. Since the Wessely study failed to find any XMRV anywhere, as did the German prostate cancer study, all the study really suggests is that their testing methodology failed to find whatever the WPI found. By the way, of the 2 publicly available tests in the US, the Co-operative Diagnostic test is also finding no positives at all (and crowing of a guarantee of "no false positives"), whereas the licenced VPI Diagnostics test is believed to be finding 50-70% positives. The tests use fundamentally different methodologies so there may be some subtlety to what the WPI test is finding - we will know more on Jan 22 when Dr Mikovits lectures live.

For now, the headline
British Scientists Fail to Replicate
can safely be abbreviated to
British Scientists Fail

------------------------------------------------------
You must put this out into the public arena as well. Hit the Independent with your negative comments just as you noted above. Hit the www.plosone.org site where the study is published with your negative comments. Damage, counter-punch, and keep hitting Wessely again and again. The UK folks MUST take down Wessely and the US folks must take down Reeves. No other way around it. These fools have more sway than they should. In the "real world" they would not be employed as a dog catcher.
KEEP PUNCHING AT THEM.

 

[Min]

It is my belief that two of the reasons this this flawed study has been rushed through is to both deny National health Testing to UK patients and to deny National Health antiretroviral reatment to any UK patient who tests positively fro xmrv using private tests.

Also to keep ME/CFS firmly in the hands of the UK psychiatrists who are making a mint from it and several of whom also work for large insurance companies who would have to pay out to ME sufferers if it were proven to be a physical illness. The psychiatrists involved and the Medical Research Council have been working hard (and successfully) to prevent the latter since the early 1980s.

 

[Jenny]

What I'm worried about now is that we get into the same sort of situation that's happened with Lyme disease. Lots of different tests, with polarised opinions on which test is accurate, and so which treatments are appropriate. People who are negative for Lyme on the test used in the UK are often positive when tested at a US lab or a German lab. And one UK doctor uses dark-field microscopy, much to the derision of others.

I don't understand the detail of the testing procedures, but it seems to be that there is no way of knowing which Lyme tests are accurate, so doctors return to a clinical diagnosis, and treatment is offered on an empirical basis ('you may have Lyme but we can only confirm this if you improve after 3 years of antibiotics').

Arguments about Lyme testing and treatment have reached deadlock - will this go the same way?

What if the researchers in this study say their test is accurate, but VIP insist theirs is the only accurate test?

The other similarity with the Lyme situation is that there seem to be different strains of borrelia in different countries. Isn't this highly likely with XMRV? It may take years to discover any different strains.

 

[Alexia]

Have you read the statement from the INVEST in ME? http://www.investinme.org/Article-381 BBC XMRV Statement January 2010.htm
I find it very good and clear.

 

[joyscobby]

Where is BBC Article Gone?

I have been trying to acess the BBC article since last night when it first appeared and cannot get it. Is it me or What?

 

[Min]

it's here, but it seems different, i thought Simon Wessely was mentioned in yesterdays:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8298529.stm

the dail mail are accepting comments on their article, 'British experts say ME virus is a myth'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...dash-ME-breakthrough-hopes.html#ixzz0bpwgVLv9


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1240871/British-experts-dash-ME-breakthrough-hopes.html

 

[Jimk]

An opinion piece commenting on the Wessley study http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...r-researchers-must-work-together-1859004.html has this cogent comment from a reader:
Imperial College XMRV research is scientifically THIN!
[info]science_based wrote:
Wednesday, 6 January 2010 at 08:41 am (UTC)
"YES! Credible scientific research journals such as Science should be encouraged to "publish any further studies that can answer whether or not XMRV is a genuine cause of chronic fatigue syndrome." IF they can meet the high scientific hurdle @ Science. The Science XMRV research DID pass rigorous peer review - over several months. The Science results were produced at the WPI labs, and repeated not only at the esteemed Cleveland Clinic labs, but also at the National Cancer Institute.

Conversely today's rebuttal research by Imperial College was self-funded, and peer-reviewed over a course of up to 4 days by a journal that allows researchers to Pay-for-publish. A far cry from an independent replication study, much less a scientifically rigorous one. There are multiple methodological weaknesses that render today’s research a NON-replication. But the most glaring is that patient cohort definition did NOT follow the rigorous Canadian Criteria for ME/CFS AND Fukuda Criteria, as per the Science paper. This is a longstanding flaw in much of the research - particularly by today's authors - on ME/CFS: patient selection that is not comparable. It is no surprise that today's researchers didn't find XMRV in a cohort of vaguely fatigued patients of undefined diagnosis. Please educate yourself on the ME/CFS case definitions to see for yourself whether we are talking apples and oranges (eg. Canadian ME/CFS criteria PLUS Fukuda were used by the Science researchers - NOT the weaker CDC ir Oxford criteria). Today's paper also only mentions excluding patients with "the Fukuda-specified exclusionary psychiatric disorders". They do NOT state that they used Fukuda, much less Canadian criteria.

Any knowledgeable, ME/CFS researcher knows that a hallmark of Canadian Criteria-defined ME/CFS is Post-Exertional Malaise. Not just debilitating mental and physical fatigue, but also flu-like symptoms: hit-by-a-truck achiness, sore-throat, swollen uvula etc., after trivial activity. Viral symptoms. Another world from your typical depressed housewife profiled in Wesseley's research.

Surely this media has better journalistic integrity. It would also behoove you to learn about the well known possible variability of PCR primers, so that you can make an intelligent assessment of the quality of the lab science.

Finally, consider this quote from the Imperial College paper: "All patients had undergone medical screening to exclude detectable organic illness". In other words, these scientists have arbitrarily determined that patients with ME/CFS do not have organic illness - a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Also check the PLoS website where today's research was published: On average, all accepted articles have been reviewed by 2.8* experts (one Academic Editor and 1.8* external Peer Reviewers). The study was received December 1 2009, & accepted December 4 2009. A total of 4 days for "peer-review". This is a FAR cry from Science journal's rigorous peer review.

DO bring on more research on the connection between ME/CFS and XMRV! But please differentiate between credible research and flimsy science. Please do your homework, and recommend the submission of high-calibre research that is indeed "peer-reviewed". As you so aptly stated: “Peer review and the independent replication of results are both critical to the scientific process. Without them, it would be impossible to SORT THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF.”

Finally, you mention a handful of as-yet unpublished reports - rumor at this point. You should know that 75 American retrovirologists were so interested in the Science work that they convened an emergency meeting - as did the US Blood Service - to develop assays and diagnostics. We all want good science vs marketing ploys. Please learn to differentiate between the two.

Now a REALLY good story - Wait for the Blood Review in the US to come out - with its findings on ME/CFS and the XMRV retrovirus. THEN investigate how the psychiatry lobby was able in the UK and US to put a stranglehold on biological research for patients suffering - and dying - from a retrovirus. For decades! Now THAT's both science - and a story. "

On some other matters:
Yes, primers make a huge difference, as does methodlogy.
Note that the same DNA sequences were not tested, and that the researchers do not explain why they would test some alternates instead of trying to truly replicate the original study they are critiquing. I don't know enough about the organism to know why some sequences might be better targets than others, but we certainly know that some proteins are up regulated or down regulated at different parts of the growth cycle, and to test for proteins that might be more likely to be in a down regulated form will reduce chances of finding it.

Overall though, after reading through these pages of this thread I have to say that we have to wait for all the studies to wash out. And I hate that. The Science study was so well done, so many pieces tied up such as using recovered cells to infect new cells, that it seemed like a solid case. We all have our hopes up that this damned illness will have, finally, a real treatment as well as real validation. But I've seen other "suspender and belt" studies be ignored or dissed by using incorrect methodology in the bacterial field. To whit: Balin not only recovered Chlamydia pneumoniae DNA from brains of Alzheimer's patients, but also live, infective forms he could culture. This on top of years of cumulative studies building his case. Yet his work continues to be virtually ignored.

We don't have to worry that real replication studies, unlike this British one, will be done, as there are plenty of research groups working closely with Whitmore and Cleveland Clinic so as to get the methodology right. But until that happens the XMRV is still just a theory. I hate that personally, but that's how science works. Tough love.

My only final comment is about us: gee, for a bunch of really tired folks we can't seem to shut up when we get pissed... this can't be good for our adrenal glands but I confess that I too read the whole thing through until bed last night-- and on my little iPhone screen at that! I am relieved to find that, once we get over being just plain pissed, we get pissed and smart. Lot's of intelligent commentary here, let's get it out in the news and in commentary on news articles. These headlines shouldn't stand alone.

 

[Orla]

Reply to the UK Independent

Letter to Independent from ME patient who did PCR work before (not me!).


Your report on the publication by Erlwein et al in PLoS One, quotes Professor McClure as saying "When you've got such a stunning result you want to be absolutely clear that you are 1,000 per cent [sic] right and there are things in that [previous study] I would not have done. I would have waited. I would have stalled a little." Professor McClure should perhaps have taken her own advice and stalled the publication of her own research, since it consists of just a single PCR assay of one section of the XMRV sequence. Her paper hardly compares to the publication by Lombardi et al in Science, which represented a thorough investigation using different techniques. The claim that the test used was so sensitive that it would have shown up if just one molecule of the virus's genetic material had been present is not justified by the weakness of the product obtained by the positive control. It is well known among scientists that it can be difficult to replicate new research and PCR can fail for any number of reasons. It is particularly likely to fail when the protocol differs from the original study, as it did in this case. The British team, instead of making further investigations, seem to have chosen to publish their failure to produce results as quickly as possible. Perhaps the title of your report should have been "The claim that there is no link between XMRV and ME is premature."

 

[Holmsey]

Found the thread after having been sent a copy of the paper just published today and have read a selection of the posts (too many to read the whole thing) so bear that in mind if I’ve missed something important that’s been said.

I can’t comment on the science, but it reads well to someone like me…who doesn’t understand it, presumably now that the official version is in the public domain we’ll get feed back on the science employed by qualified people.

From what I’ve read thought, there seems to have been testing done to prove the samples, i.e. artificially introducing MLV and/or XMRV to prove that if it were present at source, it would show.

I know there’s loads of suspicion surrounding this but it strikes me that if it’s an attempt to cover up previous mistakes then all it’s likely to do is discredit those people and institutions involved, and that’s a tad more than the ‘Wessley school’ in this instance.

Regarding the test group selection criteria, are we happy with those? CDC isn’t the Canadian standard, how do we feel about it? Again, trying to be fair, I got my diagnosis by the same means that those in the test group appear to have gotten theirs, and there appears to have been a deliberate removal of anyone with an underlying Psych problem. My interpretation therefore is that they’re testing people who like us, have been grouped under UK-CFS/ME detection criteria, i.e. ‘you don’t have anything else we can find so it must be CFS’.

Despite any doubts about the selection criteria of the group, I feel it’s interesting that there were no hits at all, given the WPI study found 3.75% of controls had XMRV. This leads me to conclude that only the science can be faulty if the study is to be deemed illegitimate, surely there’s no way you can ensure that you’ve screened out the odd random hit? When you couple this up with the German study, who were checking into prostate cancer not CFS, and are therefore presumably free from any doubt regarding conspiracy, it looks like we’re looking at establishing why there are discrepancies in the science, or is CFS geographical, in which case it’s highly unlikely to be causal in CFS, yes?

Look it’s loads of questions again, and I know already that neither my questions or opinions have met with general approval in the past, but truth is I never wanted XMRV, CFS is enough for me to contend with, and so, yes today I’m delighted. Beyond that I’m prepared to believe until proven otherwise that this is good science done in good faith and with my best interests at heart. If you’re not of the same mind then please remember, like you I’m just trying to work my way through this.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Min, the link you have given is for the October WPI report.

The current BBC News article is this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8441491.stm

 

[I Wanna Be Well]

Found the thread after having been sent a copy of the paper just published today and have read a selection of the posts (too many to read the whole thing) so bear that in mind if Ive missed something important thats been said.

I cant comment on the science, but it reads well to someone like mewho doesnt understand it, presumably now that the official version is in the public domain well get feed back on the science employed by qualified people.

From what Ive read thought, there seems to have been testing done to prove the samples, i.e. artificially introducing MLV and/or XMRV to prove that if it were present at source, it would show.

I know theres loads of suspicion surrounding this but it strikes me that if its an attempt to cover up previous mistakes then all its likely to do is discredit those people and institutions involved, and thats a tad more than the Wessley school in this instance.

Regarding the test group selection criteria, are we happy with those? CDC isnt the Canadian standard, how do we feel about it? Again, trying to be fair, I got my diagnosis by the same means that those in the test group appear to have gotten theirs, and there appears to have been a deliberate removal of anyone with an underlying Psych problem. My interpretation therefore is that theyre testing people who like us, have been grouped under UK-CFS/ME detection criteria, i.e. you dont have anything else we can find so it must be CFS.

Despite any doubts about the selection criteria of the group, I feel its interesting that there were no hits at all, given the WPI study found 3.75% of controls had XMRV. This leads me to conclude that only the science can be faulty if the study is to be deemed illegitimate, surely theres no way you can ensure that youve screened out the odd random hit? When you couple this up with the German study, who were checking into prostate cancer not CFS, and are therefore presumably free from any doubt regarding conspiracy, it looks like were looking at establishing why there are discrepancies in the science, or is CFS geographical, in which case its highly unlikely to be causal in CFS, yes?

Look its loads of questions again, and I know already that neither my questions or opinions have met with general approval in the past, but truth is I never wanted XMRV, CFS is enough for me to contend with, and so, yes today Im delighted. Beyond that Im prepared to believe until proven otherwise that this is good science done in good faith and with my best interests at heart. If youre not of the same mind then please remember, like you Im just trying to work my way through this.

It's ok Holmsey, they probably only used people like yourself in their study, i.e, those who don't have neurological ME and have a fatigue state caused by psychological issues. Therefore their findings don't apply to those of us that have ME in the UK. I'm glad that you don't have to worry about having XMRV in your body anyway. I hope you can get yourself better. I've heard that the Lightning Process is good for people like yourself. Meanwhile let those of us on here who are physically ill with ME/CFS get on with trying to find the answers to our physical illness. Bye bye.