• 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.

What's up with Wikipedia's XMRV page??!!


Senior Member
I think that over the years I've been watching Wiki there has been a decided trend in the direction of a balanced, supportable view of what CFS is. The page is much better, even, than it was the last time we discussed it on this forum. The psychologizers get cut no more slack than do the so far unsubstantiated biological theories and the general tone is now that CFS is a serious biological illness. That's enormous progress and, under the circumstances, all we can expect at the moment.

I want to formally thank those here who have been responsible over the years for ensuring that Wiki has kept abreast of the science and knocked back those who would run with the looney speculation. This process, I believe, has worked. It would not benefit us in any way if, for instance, Wiki had put forth as fact any biological theory which has been speculated in the past. While one of them may resurface in the future as the crux of the matter, so far, none have been proven to be. And, while I believe XMRV is at the heart of ME/CFS since it fits my experience so tightly, I must allow that this remains unproven in any way which does, or even should, satisfy an "encyclopedia" at the moment.

So, thank you to all of you who edit Wiki - I have done in the past but do not at the moment - what you are doing is working. There is necessary tension and you are doing a great job of exerting it at your end.

Many, many thanks for that!


Here's what's wrong. They said "but these findings were not replicated in three follow-up studies." That is a misleading statement because replication was never attempted. Also, the word "follow-up" makes is sound like they concluded what the first one started, when they actually ran fewer tests. What it should say is "other studies did not find this correlation."

even no one has yet attempted a replication study