XMRV and prostate cancer a 'final' perspective

[Robyn]

You're referring to the Science paper, but I'm talking about the original 2006 findings by Silverman's group.  A later paper by Silverman's group identified XMRV integration sites in humans, but two of those have been identified as likely results of contamination, as Silverman recently concluded himself after a first report by Towers.

Oh I see and why haven't his prostate papers been retracted I wonder?

[Dr. Yes]

I'm sure some of the same people have recommended it  .. I guess part of the reason is that other groups have had similar findings in prostate cancer.  The only group to publish support of Lombardi et al 2009 was Alter's, and the BWG provided supposedly 'damning' evidence which was used against both groups; nobody's done a BWG-style study with prostate cancer yet.  There are of course inherent problems with a study design like the BWG's, and unresolved questions about its protocols, results and what conclusions can actually be drawn from them.  In any event they do not negate a number of the findings of Lombardi et al.  Bruce Alberts and others, unfortunately, came to a different conclusion...

[Firestormm]

Reviews can be very helpful, as you mentioned, but they can also oversimplify issues or cherry-pick findings while giving the impression of being comprehensive, so it's always essential to fact-check their claims by going back to the original source material.  Extremely tedious, but necessary.

Thanks 

[Firestormm]

I think this: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,11444.0.html might account for Nature posting the 'final' perspectives review again.

It is correspondence submitted in relation to the main article, titled 'What can academia learn from XMRV studies?' from Chungen Pan, Xiaochu Ma and Shibo Jiang; and dated 14th February 2012.

I've only had a very brief read through it but will take another look after a rest.

Thanks Subtr4ct (again)