Onlangs maakte ik melding van het feit dat de FDA en de NIH op korte termijn

de Lombardi/Mikovits-XMRV-studie zouden gaan gaan bevestigen (klik hier).

Het CDC heeft echter XMRV niet kunnen vinden (hadden we anders kunnen verwachten?).

In afwachting van (politieke of wetenschappelijke) consensus

is de publicatie van alle studies (voorlopig?) uitgesteld....

Publication of XMRV papers should not be blocked

30 June 2010

The findings by the NIH and FDA that XMRV is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome has been accepted for publication by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Release of the article has been blocked by PNAS due to work carried out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That study, which was submitted to Retrovirology, failed to find a link between XMRV and CFS. Its publication has also been placed on hold.

According to ScienceInsider:

The contradiction has caused "nervousness" both at PNAS and among senior officials within the Department of Health and Human Services, of which all three agencies are part, says one scientist with inside knowledge.

It is senseless to block publication because the two papers reach different conclusions. If both manuscripts were subjected to proper peer-review, and were deemed acceptable by the referees, then they should be published. The journal editorial offices must respect the opinions of the reviewers. By overriding their decisions, they have compromised the entire peer reviewer process.

Blocking publication also sends the wrong message to CFS patients, to the public, and scientists. Not only does this action raise suspicions about their motives – are they trying to publish only the result they believe is correct? – but it ignores the very important fact that science is self correcting. Scientists are humans, and they make mistakes. But eventually the right answer will come to the surface. And that is why PNAS and Retrovirology should respect peer review, publish the XMRV papers, and let science correct itself.

http://www.virology.ws/2010/06/30/publication-of-xmrv-papers-should-not-be-blocked

With Papers On Hold, Government Scientists Fuel Debate on Virus for Chronic Fatigue

by Martin Enserink on June 30, 2010 4:42 AM

Samenvatting:

It was just a snippet of news, reported by an obscure journal in the Netherlands. Science has learned that a paper describing the new findings, already accepted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has been put on hold because it directly contradicts another as-yet-unpublished study by a third government agency, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The debate over XMRV started in 2009 when a group of researchers led by Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, Nevada, reported in Science finding traces of the virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, a type of white blood cell, of 67% of CFS patients. Ortho, a Dutch magazine about nutrition and food supplements, last week issued a press release saying that Harvey Alter, a renowned virologist at NIH's Clinical Center, mentioned the study when he gave a talk at a blood safety meeting in the Croatian capital Zagreb in late May. In his PowerPoint presentation, Alter wrote that the data in the 2009 study in Science "are extremely strong and likely true, despite the controversy.

Bron:

http://informsciencenetwork.com/sciences/papers-hold-government-scientists-fuel-debate-virus-chronic-fatigue-3582050a

Voor het volledige artikel:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/conflicting-papers-on-hold-as-xm.html

Chronic-Fatigue Link to Virus Disputed

One Research Group Finds Virus XMRV in the Blood of Syndrome Sufferers, One Does Not; Papers Held From Publication.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

By Amy Docker Marcus

Two groups of researchers studying a potential link between chronic-fatigue syndrome and a virus called XMRV have reached contradictory conclusions, according to people familiar with the findings.

One group found a link, and the other didn't.

Their reports were held from publication after being accepted by two science journals - a rare move that has caused a stir among scientists in the field.

....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703374104575337160225739290.html

Met dank aan Erik, Dean en anderen.