Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research Debunked

Tiredness is not the major symptom of this illness as your article seems to suggest. It is the ridiculous moniker, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, assigned by the CDC in America (who did not accept the condition as an illness) which has led to this misconception. I have suffered from this illness for 26 years and while I have reported indescribable muscle and generalized weakness in addition to loss of normal stamina, at no time have I EVER reported fatigue as a symptom. The "host of other symptoms" you refer to relate to the neuroendocrine systems of the body and are, frankly, beyond the comprehension of people who have not suffered from the illness. They are not the type of symptoms you would experience with flu, glandular fever or other common illnesses and it is they, not fatigue or "tiredness" which are the major hallmarks of this illness. It has in fact been classed as a neurological illness by the World Health Organization. Whilst I welcome any reporting of this godawful illness that helps to create an awareness of it, after 25 years I'm tired to the bone (fatigued if you like) of the trivialization of a sometimes fatal illness which has all but destroyed my life, the lives of countless millions of others, and which poses a major economical drain to families and society. In light of the countless research projects which have proven gross immune and other body system abnormalities it really is irresponsible for journalists who write articles which reach millions of readers to continue to focus on "tiredness" as the central feature of the illness. It's more than merely inaccurate; it perpetuates a myth.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Frankie Vigil
R&R Partners for
Whittemore Peterson Institute
775-336-4555
frankie.vigil@rrpartners.com

Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Regarding UK Study

The Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) has reviewed the paper entitled “Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” This study did not duplicate the rigorous scientific techniques used by WPI, the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic, therefore it cannot be considered a replication study nor can the results claim to be anything other than a failure not just to detect XMRV, but also a failure to suggest meaningful results.

The scientific methods used by WPI are very exact and require specific techniques to ensure accuracy. Differences in techniques employed by Erlwein et al. not only explain their failure to replicate the WPI study, but also render the conclusions meaningless. These differences include, but are not limited to the following:

1) blood sample volumes and processing;
2) patient criteria/population differences;
3) number and type of tests done to assure accurate results, including white blood cell culture;
4) use of a molecular plasmid control in water versus a positive blood sample; and
5) different primer sequences and amplification protocol used to find the virus, which were not validated by a clinical control.

The WPI study was published after six months of rigorous review and three independent lab confirmations, proving that contamination had not taken place and that infectious XMRV was present in 67 percent of CFS patients diagnosed according to the Canadian and Fukuda criteria. In contrast, this latest study was published online after only three days of review. Significant and critical questions remain as to the status of patient samples used in the UK study as those samples may have been confused with fatigued psychiatric patients, since the UK has relegated “CFS” patients to psychiatric care and not traditional medical practices.

“Little is known about the prevalence of XMRV world-wide, much less the incidence of XMRV in ME/CFS or prostate cancer” emphasizes Dr. Judy Mikovits. “WPI and its NCI collaborators are actively engaged with international research teams to investigate these important questions.”

WPI does not recommend the use of anti-retroviral drugs that have yet to be proven to be effective in treating XMRV infection. However, several large pharmaceutical companies have expressed interest in developing anti-retroviral and immune modulating drugs that will effectively treat XMRV associated diseases.

WPI looks forward to the results of other scientific groups around the world, serious about replicating its scientific results, by using the same techniques as WPI and its collaborators. The fact that XMRV was detected in 67 percent of the CFS samples in the U.S. study determined a significant association between XMRV and CFS, demanding a much more serious inquiry by responsible health agencies around the world as to the cause of this debilitating disease.

-###-

Whittemore Peterson Institute
The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease exists to bring discovery, knowledge, and effective treatments to patients with illnesses that are caused by acquired dysregulation of the immune system and the nervous system, often results in lifelong disease and disability. The WPI is the first institute in the world dedicated to X associated neuro-immune disease (XAND), and other X associated diseases, integrating patient treatment, basic and clinical research and medical education.

I'd really like to know who made the determination that the original study was "debunked". The original study was peer reviewed and scrutinzed by the most highly respected scientific journal. The findings were also confirmed by three independent labs.

In my opinion the second study done in the UK was a "failure" - as it failed to find what four other laboratories found. How disappointing that this article appears to be biased.

I think your article is VERY INACCURATE. You have not taken into account the two sides of the coin.

To start with CFS is a REAL illness, and is not put into question by none of the two studies done on XMRV presence on CFS patients. Both studies were trying to proof or disproof the potential causation of CFS by XMRV, None of the studies put into question CFS as an illness, as it is already publicly recognized by the WHO.

To continue, the recent research of UK towards XMRV failed to be a valid replication of the one made in the US by the WPI. There is a press release available done by WPI, and CFIDS Association of America:
http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/WPI_Erlwein_010610.pdf
http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2010/010603.asp

There is also an article in The Economist that makes a fair analysis of what is going on with the two sides of the story, very much unlike yours:
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15211401

I hope that this gives you a clearer vision of what this story is about.

Well... the second article that "debunked" the first was published in a journal of lower integrity. Science, the publisher of the first is considered the gold standard for research. Apparently softpedia means soft on research. This guy needs to learn how to do research and learn a little about science before he stats writting about it. Ive worked in several med labs and the second article was published and reviewed in less than three days.