UK Study a Sheer Disappointment - Credibility of Replication Study Questionable

It has come to my attention, and I have read the research article "Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" in the publication PLOS one.  I have studied the facts behind the research, which I find rather unremarkable at first glance.  However it has come to my attention from Dr. Suzanne Vernon's analysis that different primers were used, collection methods varied from the Whittemore-Peterson study, different methods were used to purify genomic DNA and amounts differed, and PCR amplification methods were different.  The fact that a different polymerase was used could skew the results altogether, fouling the results - the golden rule in replication studies is copy exactly!!!  What I did find remarkable however, is who is behind the research - noting the psychiatric connection: Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London - and none other than Simon Wessely - Britain's own version of Dr. Reeves - which pours some cold water on the credibility of this study - statements issued by Wessely stating his opinion before the experiment was done, and the speed in which it was done indicates it was not a good quality study.  Before any conclusions can be reached, I would like to see the results of the ongoing study by Dr. Kerr, which in my opinion should bear a significant amount of credibility, as should the Swedish study by Dr. Jonas Blomberg.

I would hope that the Whittemore Peterson Institute will retest the samples in this study, and establish whether or not experiment protocol was followed - meanwhile it's a waiting game for results of other studies.  Hopefully ME/CFS patients will not be forced to hear that neuropsychiatric psychobabble much longer - and the only way the truth behind ME/CFS will be known is through generously funded, high-quality studies.

Fellow Britons Unite For The Truth!

It has come to my attention as of late that our government holds a file in the National Archives at Kew, which contains MRC documentation on ME since 1988.  The file was to be kept from the public eye until 2023, however this has been extended until 2071!  Normally, such measures are only enacted on matters of defence, national security, and in matters that are considered very confidential.  But what on earth would the medical research council want to keep from public view???  It comes from the same time as the UK's own version of Dr. Reeves - Simon Wessely began to propagandize ME as a psychiatric illness.  It would seem rather absurd to even cite patient confidentiality, as a black marker would make short work of maintaining patient confidentiality.

However, fellow Britons, you have options.  In THIS document, there is a LINK to request a review of the record under the Freedom of Information act, which requires the filling out of only a few fields.  If the National Archives does not provide a satisfactory response, then contact the parliamentary and health services ombudsman:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London, SW1P 4QP
Telephone: +44 (0) 84 5015 4033
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7217 4000
Email: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk

You may also want to contact:

Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6WQ

Also, if the requested information is refused, an application may be made to the Information Commissioner, who has the power to order such disclosure, and if unsuccessful, the applicant may appeal the decision to an appeal tribunal - in many cases which have been successful the information has been provided with some redactions to protect confidentiality: The appeal tribunal consists of experienced barristers or solicitors which must provide a fair and independent review.  It is your right, and I strongly recommend that you exercise these rights!

Dr. William Reeves - Another Mark Whiteacre? Criminal Negligence Perhaps?

For those of you who don't know, Mark Whiteacre was a biochemist at Archer Daniels Midland, who is most famously remembered as one of the highest level corporate whistleblowers in the history of corporate America.  He got the inside scoop on a price fixing scandal on Lysine and other products, and got his bosses in trouble, while he himself had his own embezzlement scheme going on within the company.  A similar thing can be said about Dr. Reeves at the CDC - he blew the whistle on his bosses, and yet he continues to be hypocritical to the extreme by stating that the retroviral program at the CDC was taking the lead in an attempt to replicate the WPI XMRV results.

Reeves acted unethically by stating to the press that he did not expect the agency (CDC) to replicate the WPI findings of XMRV in ME/CFS patients.  He acted unethically in that he pre-judged someone else's findings, before doing any research of his own.  He put his credibility, and quite possibly his career on the line - and he will be watched very closely.  Falsifying data won't go over this time.

But why would the CDC engage in such sinister behavior?  Their mission is to protect the public from emerging infections, and in this case they've failed miserably.  The pharmaceutical companies rely on them to lay out their research roadmaps for the future - if they put out junk science, how is the pharmaceutical industry to develop new treatments?  And why would they want to intentionally try and deny scientific facts???

It's certainly not in the interest of the drug companies, CFS/ME/FM/Gulf War Syndrome patients.  It seems the CDC's motto is if it isn't a deadly disease, then feed them Thorazine, Zyprexa, and Amitriptylline, and keep them so sedated they can't think straight - something that's already difficult enough for these patients - now we'll turn them into living zombies!  For the drug companies this would only represent five or six dollars a day - so it wouldn't contribute much to their bottom lines - Amitryptilline and Thorazine are off patent and cheap.  But anti-retrovirals would be a potential goldmine for the pharmaceutical industry - rather than sell just to HIV patients, now they could quadruple their sales to CFS/ME/FM/Gulf War Syndrome patients.

So who would not want that?  The first that come to mind are HMO's PPO's, publicly funded health plans.  Having to pay $1000 or more for XMRV treatments for an indeterminate period of time is something they would not take sitting down.  The second that comes to mind is blood banks - now they've got to worry about tainted blood on an unprecedented scale - making HIV and Hep C look like child's play.  Then comes the issue of liablity and lawsuits - like in Canada after the Canadian Red Cross was found negligent.  If they can keep it as a neuropsychiatric illness, then they can keep putting off liability.  It's criminal negligence at it's finest - the CDC knew of a viral link for twenty years, and they failed to act on it, and thousands more people became ill!