High-Profile 2009 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study In Dispute (XMRV retrovirus study)

[HuckleB]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-nw-chronic-fatigue-xmrv-20111004,0,730200.story

"The journal that published a high-profile paper linking chronic fatigue syndrome to a retrovirus is now investigating allegations that a figure in that report was manipulated.

The appearance in Science of the 2009 paper caused an immediate sensation among patients who have yearned for an explanation for their condition. Its authors said they had found evidence of a retrovirus called XMRV in the blood of people with chronic fatigue syndrome more frequently than in the blood of their healthy peers.

The report included a figure purporting to depict lab test results from seven blood samples: two from chronic fatigue syndrome patients whose blood appears to show evidence of XMRV and five from healthy people whose blood does not.

But the leader of the team that authored the 2009 paper, researcher Judy Mikovits, apparently presented the same figure — carrying different labels and supporting a different point — in a talk given at a conference on Sept. 23 in Ottawa.


..."


----------------------

FYI...

[HuckleB]

1. (Scratches head. Wonders why this article is offensive enough to be given an unrec.)

:shrug:

[SheilaT]

5. I still can't figure out why

I'll see comments like this about unrec's, and I'm yet to see the unrec mentioned.

[HuckleB]

8. I'm not sure I get your point.

FYI: This was at one point at +2, and then it went to zero. It's back up to +2 now.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Celebration]

3. kind of a weird story

Why wasn't it more specific about the "number", I wonder?

Was there some kind of motivation for her to have made up data? Odd all around. Post viral fatigue is well known. I had it once for a few weeks after having a bad virus. Perhaps some people don't snap out of it.

[HuckleB]

4. All follow up studies have been unable to replicate this study.

There are many possible motivations. That is still under investigation.

[Celebration]

6. But what is the deal with the number?

I mean that part of it is strange. I wish that was better explained. Doesn't mean there was fraud just because it wasn't replicated. On the other hand she was terminated. I wish there was more about the use of the same number.

[HuckleB]

7. It's not something that's going to be explained in depth in a newspaper article.

[Celebration]

9. why not?

It would only take a couple of sentences. It makes a difference for instance if the number is 16.675% or 25%. They make it sound significant and then just drop the ball. :shrug:

Not the first bad article about something, though.

[HuckleB]

10. It's not likely that simple.