Exactly my concerns. Mikovits was quoted as saying a
couple of months ago that
due to better testing methods they were finding it in 95, 98, even 99% of subjects tested...and now we have all these inconclusive results, multiple requests for retesting, etc...
Doesn't make sense.
At least not to my fogged out mushy brain.
d.
It seems a little suspect to me. I think they might be claiming those high percentages to try to give their research the appearance of more legitimacy.
The original study only claimed 67 percent. The claims of 95+ percent were just from a comment from the researcher after the fact, saying that "subsequent efforts" with more refined testing procedures, etc. had found more positives. But where is the evidence for this other 30 percent they are claiming? Has anyone seen any documentation of this alleged other 30 percent who supposedly have XMRV, or the antibodies, or whatever the claim is?
Because let's face it: what would you rather fund, a study that said 67 percent of people had something, or 95+ percent? If they claim higher numbers, they can generate more interest and possibly more backing. It makes it seem more like a "slam dunk." I think as things proceed the numbers might start to become more conservative, and sad to say XMRV itself might even pan out to be just another false or overly hyped lead. In the meantime, they can possibly generate some grant money for themselves, money for the labs from people impatient to get the test, etc. Sorry to sound so cynical, but after a while seeing how this corporate medical complex works, you can't help but have some doubts.
Another thing that seems highly suspect to me in this respect are the prostate cancer numbers. The study showing the prostate cancer link says that 27 percent of the prostate cancers they looked at had evidence of XMRV associated with them. But in light of the CFS claims, that number doesn't really seem to make sense. In the CFS research (and subsequent claims), 99 out of 101 people (98 percent) with CFS supposedly had XMRV, while only 3.7% of healthy non-CFS people had the virus. In practical terms, that would suggest that almost every person who gets XMRV eventually winds up with chronic fatigue.
But if 27 percent of prostate cancer patients also have XMRV, then statistically speaking that would mean that virtually every one of those people with prostate cancer would also have to have had CFS. Doesn't that seem very unlikely, even just on the surface? Not to mention how unlikely it would be that they all had both, and no one knew or bothered to mention that all these test subjects in the prostate study also had CFS? The entire scenario is just too implausible, imho.
Again, I hope I am totally wrong and that this pans out to something meaningful. In the meantime, I'm not jumping to do any testing out of pocket for something that 1) there would still not be any treatment for, and 2) in the eyes of the mainstream medical profession would prove nothing more than you have XMRV or XMRV antibodies. I can hear the massive cries of "so what" from primary care physicians all over the country. I have massive EBV titers, and that's what they say for that. I also have chronic leukopenia, and they shrug their shoulders over that, too. Who knows, they would probably even try to claim that XMRV is evidence of some psychiatric disorder for all we know. I also don't see how you can sue any doctor over XMRV when they didn't even know it existed or did anything. I'm not a lawyer so maybe there is a way. I just don't see what it's going to prove to walk in anywhere -- whether a courthouse or a doctors' office -- waving around an XMRV lab. Until any of this is more established and trickles down into the "conventional wisdom," they're all just going to say "so what."