Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Sucker Punch - no Knockdown

Vincent Racaniello is among the scientists taking another look at the complex issue of the "contamination issue" in the retroviral association with ME/CFS. His further analysis is here. Various other scientists will be doing the same re-figuring as the dust from this "pollution" settles. Various tempered responses have been released that sharply differ in tone and substance from what has been published by a knee-jerk press - and disseminated worldwide. This is not an argument with the studies themselves, just with the circumstance of their release. The studies can be dissected on their own and will be dismembered, piece by piece, but the disturbance to the large "force field" of serious research is going to be very difficult to reverse.

It is important to register that there has been no knockout punch of XMRV. The X-people are still standing (or reclining, as the case may be). In the last two days, many ME/CFS patients have been damaged by this disproportionately negative spin on this so-called news - and for what?

The situation and motive surrounding the "set-up" of these Monday morning press releases is highly questionable. These collectively released sucker punches have done a great, great disservice to trying to figure out the complex potential association of MLV-related viruses and ME/CFS. Someone engineered this release for maximum damage - and they have been very successful. Who did this? Is it willful malice? In no way is this an innocent coincidence. The scientists and/or editors responsible for this should be fired - the whole pack of them. As Caligula said, "If only all of Rome had one neck to wring."


  1. It is curious that there is a race to publish negative results. A tempered approach would be more appropriate and more scientific.
    Is there a viral relationship? We do not know but we should try to make an unbiased determination. If there is a virus present we may expect an immune response in the form of IgM or Igg antibodies, antibodies were seen in an early part of the research.
    These antibodies are not part of an in vitro contamination, as the response happens in the body and not in the testing lab where there may be a claim of contaamination.
    A replication study using split samples in a double blind array has still not been completed. This unfortunately is bad science on both sides.

  2. God Bless you. CFS/ME and Fibromyalgia are underfunded and tossed to the side of the road despite the amount of people that are suffering. I pray for all of us and for their advocates. You need the strength as well!


  3. Racaniello's retraction of his comments showed some integrity in the field; however, it will find a much smaller audience than the 4 studies and press release did.

    Guess it will have to be up to the patients and their advocates (bless you, Chris) to spread the truth once again.

  4. Stoye, et al's report on the 1st International Workshop on XMRV was finally published by Retrovirology tonight. It was submitted on November 9th, within the submittal range of the 4 negative studies.

    Now, whatever reason could there have been to NOT publish this workshop paper (which includes a description of the positive results) on Monday, along with the other 4 papers?

  5. Contrast the Monday morning wave of press releases with this news and the previous Friday afternoon news seeping out of Unger's appointment at the CDC. You can't help but think these matters are being carefully orchestrated.

  6. You asked an important question. "Someone engineered this release for maximum damage - and they have been very successful. Who did this? Is it willful malice? In no way is this an innocent coincidence. The scientists and/or editors responsible for this..."

    Coordinated action like this has been happening again and again. I really would like to know who is responsible.

    Patricia Carter

  7. I used googleScholar to find papers with Dr Coffin's name on them. I found about 397, mostly paid for by US governmental bodies such as NIH.

    Of the first 100 papers whose titles I skimmed, 24% were about avian viruses - chicken tumor viruses, like Rous sarcoma (8% of the first 100 papers.)

    Dr Stoye's name was on many of Coffin's papers. Stoye seems mesmerized by mice. His research, including fascinating papers on the hairless mutation in lab mice, are all based on mice as subjects of study.

    No wonder these two researchers become discombobulated when human patients talk back and question their motives. The mice and the chickens never did that!

    The remaining papers were mostly about HIV. It seems that those researchers deeply embedded in HIV research money pipelines do not want any money diverted to the potentially huge subject of viral infection in the 1-4 million Americans with ME/CFS.

    Alan Rein of NCI basically said that on Vincent Rancaniello's podcast today. He admitted that XMRV might be a human infectious retrovirus but then stated it might not be and he would not like research money "wasted" on it.

    These guys have their lives and their incomes all lined up for the next few years and ME/CFS research was not included in the plan. Some of those research grants cover 5 years, if they come up with the right results. They don't want to switch horses in midstream. HIV is "safe" research so why take a chance on ME/CFS?