« Drug Prices in the US: Not So High After All? |
| Merck Site Announcements - Closures and Otherwise »
July 7, 2010
XMRV and Chronic Fatigue: You Thought You Were Confused Before
Time to revisit the chronic fatigue/XMRV controversy, because it's become even crazier. To catch up, there was a 2009 report in Science that this little-known virus correlated strongly with patients showing the clinical syndrome. Criticism was immediate, with several technical comments and rebuttals coming out in the journal. Then researchers from the UK and Holland strongly challenged the original paper's data and said that they could not reproduce anything like it.
Recently I (and a lot of other people who write about science) received an e-mail claiming that a paper was about to come out from a group at the NIH that confirmed the first report. I let that one go by, since I thought I'd wait for, you know, the actual paper (for one thing, that would let me be sure that there really was one). Now Science reports that yes, there is such a manuscript. But. . .
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of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has been put on hold because it directly contradicts another as-yet-unpublished study by a third government agency, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That paper, a retrovirus scientist says, has been submitted to Retrovirology and is also on hold; it fails to find a link between the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and CFS. 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.
I'll bet it has! It looks like the positive findings are from Harvey Alter at NIH, and the negative ones are from William Switzer at the CDC. Having two separate government labs blatantly contradict each other - simultaneously, yet - is what everyone seems to be trying to avoid. Sounds to me like each lab is going to have to try the other's protocols before this one gets ironed out.
I wouldn't be expecting either paper to appear any time soon, if that's the case.
Update: Well, as it turns out, the Retrovirology paper has been published - so what's holding up PNAS? Might as well get them both out so everyone can compare. . .
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | Infectious Diseases
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Eli Lilly and Cambridge
- A New Old Antibiotic
- Calls For Andrew Witty's Job at GSK
- Peter Thiel's Book
- Human CRISPR
- Rename Merck. Either Merck.
- The Reproducibility Initiative Weighs In
- Recent Clinical Trials