XMRV - An update by Dr Ken Jolly - 16 June 2011.13.11
| UPDATE PAGE |
The XMRV hypothesis has taken a rather severe hit to its
credibility in the last couple of weeks.
To me, up until this time, all negative studies (i.e. those studies which did
not show any connection between the XMRV virus and CFS) could have had some
doubt cast on their validity by the fact that the authors’ of these papers may
have demonstrated a negative bias.
I’m not saying this was necessarily so, but merely that up until this point I
was not aware of a paper produced by researchers who strongly support a physical
causation of CFS such as XMRV and were thus highly motivated to try to find any
such correlation.
This has now changed.
For the first time, to my knowledge, research has now been carried out by a
group (other than the initial investigators at the WPI) who are strongly
motivated to finding such a connection.
This group was headed by Dr. Ila Singh, the researcher who originally found the
XMRV virus in prostatic tissue. Included in this group is Dr. Lucinda Bateman, a
strong supporter of CFS patients and an advocate of a physical cause of CFS.
The results of their findings were negative. i.e. they did not find the XMRV
virus in CFS patients.
According to their report their attempt included every possible test they could
think of to demonstrate the virus if it was there.
This is quite damning evidence – and is the first and only existing reliable
evidence in my opinion against a XMRV/CFS connection.
However this is still not absolute evidence that XMRV is not connected to the
disease of CFS or even that it does not cause the illness.
It is just the first, suggestive piece of research against the possibility.
The ‘hole’ that the authors of the paper may have overlooked is still that they
may not have used the exact, and correct, technique for displaying the virus in
CFS patients.
This is the explanation that the researchers at the WPI will probably use to
explain the difference in results between the two groups.
However it is now just beginning to look like for the first time that there is a
possibility that the original research was flawed.
This conundrum will not however be sorted out until later
in the year when the large study by Dr Ian Lipkin et al.
is completed and their results known.
It is thought that this will hopefully provide the ultimate answer to the
mystery.
If this shows no connection between XMRV and CFS it will be disappointing for patients who hoped that the research at the WPI had finally found the cause of ME/CFS.
However this should be seen only as a temporary set back once it is realised
that at least the uncertainty has been sorted out and that therefore researchers
can once again return to the trail of finding the “real culprit.”
I understand it would have been nice if XMRV had turned out to be the cause and
therefore the solution to our misery was on hand right now, but it is more
important to know the real answer when that comes, in the end.
If this is the case the interest that XMRV created in the
scientific community will have also hopefully introduced some new and powerful
players to the game.
Interestingly if Lipkin et al. do conclude that XMRV is not related to CFS I
suspect that this will not be the end of the interest in XMRV pathway by the
WPI.
Unless it is irrevocably pointed out to the WPI researchers where they went
wrong and that they agree with this decision I believe they will continue
carrying out research into XMRV and CFS.
Where this may eventually lead is anybody’s guess.
No doubt there would also continue to be a hardcore group of ‘XMRV believers.’
One day the WPI researchers may be able to prove to the world that they were
right all along (this has actually been the path of many determined and ground
breaking scientists in the past), or continue stubbornly while unable to ever
demonstrate to others their belief.
They will ultimately be regarded as mistaken players in the field, or heroes.
Whatever pans out it is important that the rest of the scientific world
continues to study this important and devastating disease.
Addendum. (2nd June,
2011)
Since I wrote the above update there have been further developments in the
on-going XMRV story.
It seems that right now we are in the midst of yet another
historically tumultuous time for ME/CFS.
In the last few days “Science” magazine has asked the authors of the original paper on XMRV and CFS (Judy Mikovits et al.) to voluntarily retract the paper.( An Expression of Concern)
This is evidently an unusual step and one I am confused about.
Surely there must be millions of scientific papers which end up being superseded
by newer evidence (this is
what science is after all) or put in simpler lay persons terms ‘thought to be
wrong.’
It makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes to warrant such a
decision.
Judy Mikovits and the co-authors of the paper declined the request. (WPI Press Release)
I don’t understand why the request was made at this time when we are still
waiting on the results of what has been tacitly agreed on by the scientific
community as the definitive paper on the problem.
For this reason it seems premature.
The editors of “Science” cite the large number of negative study papers as being
the reason for their action but it seems that many of these papers are still
inconclusive – they really don’t replicate the original paper well at all and
their authors seem to have come to the conclusion that XMRV is a contaminant.
And yet they are unable to explain how this “contaminant” affects mainly CFS
patients and not the controls or the general population – this would be an
impossibly ‘selective’ action for an inactive contaminant to do.
It seems that the debate is not over yet and the XMRV story
far from resolved.
Dr Ken
Jolly