Re: Fw: Press Release from the Netherlands: FDA and NIH confirm ‘XMRV findings’

[Guest guest]

Certainly looks good. Especially in conjunction with the news from Hillary

.

[Guest guest]

Hey you two!!.. How are you both doing.?

I have a good friends, now totally debilitated with CFS, who was waiting for the

drug trial for XMRV - which now looks like that won't happen, as the original

study wasn't able to be replicated.

Barb

--- In infections , " hodolog1ca " <usenethod@...>

wrote:

>

>

> Certainly looks good. Especially in conjunction with the news from Hillary

.

>

[Guest guest]

--- In infections , " egroups1bp " <egroups1bp@...>

wrote:

>

> Hey you two!!.. How are you both doing.?

> I have a good friends, now totally debilitated with CFS, who was waiting for

the drug trial for XMRV - which now looks like that won't happen, as the

original study wasn't able to be replicated.

>

> Barb

Yoyo. I'm OK, you? Anyway, scope the news. Ruscetti (Nat'l Cancer Inst)

said there are two positive papers in press. Meanwhile various reports say that

one of those papers is the work of FDA/NIH -- there is a conference document

stating this, with some minor vagueness -- and multiple spokesmen have

implicitly affirmed this, including to the Wall Street Journal health blogger

who evidently called them up. Which basically dispels the vagueness.

Mindy Kitei is a journalist with a blog, and she knew about about the above news

a week before anyone else, and posted it. Therefore it's hard to doubt all that

much what she is now saying: that according to a serious source there are three

positive studies coming out, not two (perhaps a third one became known after

Ruscetti did his talk).

Hillary also put out similar information, from sources, which she says

are two research profs. So basically the rumors are true, there are too many

independent sources for them to be bogus.

At the same time there are about three negatives coming out in addition to the

existing three. Including one by CDC. But the word is that the negative by the

well-regarded Bridget Huber is having difficulty getting accepted by a journal

(presumably she submitted to rather elevated ones, first off). I'm guessing that

the allies of these journals advised them that the XMRV link is likely to be

true. Alternatively, they may have thought her paper was a little thin (I think

it might be PCR only). Considering the resources of FDA/NIH I am guessing that

their paper will have multiple lines of evidence. The powers that be probably

know what's in there and may feel that it trumps Huber. At any rate, what's not

possible is that they consider the subject of her paper uninteresting -- it is

on the most interesting subject going. What's left in the equation is presumably

something about whether the journal will look good or not by publishing it.

I haven't looked at it but there is also word that CDC was, weeks ago, planning

a press release or something about their study, said to be negative. If that's

true, said public statement clearly got deferred, cause it ain't come out.

I'm basically at wit's end thinking about reading the NIH/FDA paper. I thought

it was gonna come out on thurs or fri and now I'm like all wound up and ought to

be lanced with valium by a vet like an apoplectic chicken, if not simply

euthanized. Gimme my paper, you dogs! Want it right this second... what about my

rights?! You miscreants may have toiled endless years to uncover it - that was

generous of you - but I created it! After all I experienced it, dudes, and if no

one had done that, we know that it would not exist...