British XMRV study full of holes

One of the co-authors of this study, Simon Wessely, has a vested interest in the outcome of such virus studies. Simon has staked his entire academic career on the idea that neurological diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome are caused by purely psychological factors.

Therefore Simon Wessely would be the last person you would want in a study like this: if he finds the virus in CFS patients, he shoots himself in the foot, and his career may never recover. So I wonder just how hard he looked for this XMRV virus.

The odd thing is, the authors declared in this study that they have no competing interests: not true! It is very much in the interest of Simon Wessely to not find this XMRV virus. Another interesting fact is that these 3 “scientists” that conducted the study in UK where in the Psychiatric field. We know that UK goes by the Oxford Criteria while US and most other countries goes by the Canadian Criterias which states that CFS/ ME is neurological/ viral in nature, while UK says it’s a psychiatric disorder (for heavens sake!).

In a just-published study, British researchers say they didn't find XMRV in people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS or ME/CFS), which appears to contradict a study recently published in the journal Science,in which researchers found the retrovirus in the majority of people with ME/CFS. But what does this new study really prove?

It's fairly common for an infectious agent to be present at different rates in different places, so this could mean that XMRV is more rare in the UK. This is supported by prostate cancer studies -- a US study indicated a link to particularly aggressive tumors, while European studies did not.

Different procedures may also account for the difference. According to Dr. Suzanne Vernon of the CFIDS Association of America, the techniques used by the British team may simply not have been as good at detecting XMRV. (You can read her analysis here: XMRV Negative Results Emphasize Need for Robust Replication Study)

The Whittemore Peterson Institute, which conducted the original XMRV research, put out a press release outlining some key problems with the new findings:

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 (actually 98%, they expanded the testing with astounding results) 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.

(You can see the WPI's entire statement here: Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Regarding UK Study)

So, essentially, this study doesn't tell us a lot. Hopefully, current and upcoming studies will use methods more like those used in the original and will also test healthy people. Only then will we start to get an accurate picture of XMRV's prevalence, what threats it may pose, and what role (if any) it plays in ME/CFS.