Thank you for posting this data. A scientist who has severe ME, meeting both Ramsey and Hyde definitions, my physicians and I would love to see whether any at all of the patients used as subjects in this study actually had ME. They were selected by the CFS Canadian Consensus criteria, not by any ME criteria. It is possible, easy and inexpensive to do this study. It is the decent and honest thing to do, and would help both the ignored ME community and the CFS patients.
It says on one of the slides that she found 65% of UK patients positive for XMRV in collaboration with Kerr, but the published Kerr study found no XMRV in patients. So where does this 65% come from?
Here's a reference to Judy Mikovits' London cohort, 70% of whom were XMRV +ve. The patients were supplied by Jonathan Kerr. I don't know if the findings were published.
http://www.cfscentral.com/2010_09_01_archive.html Monday, September 13, 2010
XMRV Conference Recap
One thing that resonates from the two-day XMRV conference at the National Institutes of Health is the, at times, testy battle between two camps of scientists.
--Dr. Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute and principal investigator of the first study linking XMRV to CFS talked about a London CFS cohort (and then, I believe, it was British researcher Dr. Jonathan Stoye who corrected her and said that the cohort was nearer to Kent) who met the Canadian consensus and suffered from severe cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, vertigo and tender lymph nodes; more than 50 percent were homebound. The predominant MLV was XMRV, and the rate of infection among CFS patients was 70 percent.
Fifty blood donors served as controls. Dr. Jonathan Kerr (who, like Jonathan Stoye, was an author on the second negative British XMRV CFS study) drew their blood. Four percent of the controls were positive for XMRV.
5 comments:
brilliant! Thank you for the great photos and commentary - absolutely wonderful!
Thank you for posting this data.
A scientist who has severe ME, meeting both Ramsey and Hyde definitions, my physicians and I would love to see whether any at all of the patients used as subjects in this study actually had ME. They were selected by the CFS Canadian Consensus criteria, not by any ME criteria. It is possible, easy and inexpensive to do this study. It is the decent and honest thing to do, and would help both the ignored ME community and the CFS patients.
It says on one of the slides that she found 65% of UK patients positive for XMRV in collaboration with Kerr, but the published Kerr study found no XMRV in patients. So where does this 65% come from?
No response to my question about the 65% positive figure, so I guess that is just false misinformation.
Hi Anonymous,
Here's a reference to Judy Mikovits' London cohort, 70% of whom were XMRV +ve. The patients were supplied by Jonathan Kerr. I don't know if the findings were published.
http://www.cfscentral.com/2010_09_01_archive.html
Monday, September 13, 2010
XMRV Conference Recap
One thing that resonates from the two-day XMRV conference at the National Institutes of Health is the, at times, testy battle between two camps of scientists.
--Dr. Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute and principal investigator of the first study linking XMRV to CFS talked about a London CFS cohort (and then, I believe, it was British researcher Dr. Jonathan Stoye who corrected her and said that the cohort was nearer to Kent) who met the Canadian consensus and suffered from severe cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, vertigo and tender lymph nodes; more than 50 percent were homebound. The predominant MLV was XMRV, and the rate of infection among CFS patients was 70 percent.
Fifty blood donors served as controls. Dr. Jonathan Kerr (who, like Jonathan Stoye, was an author on the second negative British XMRV CFS study) drew their blood. Four percent of the controls were positive for XMRV.
Post a Comment