Chat Party! Dec. 10, 12:00 Noon during CFSAC Meeting! All are invited!DEMONSTRATION IN WASH DC! Dec 10 9am HHS bldg D.C, 10am area 9 Capitol, 11am-1pm GO WALLY! See: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,18501.0.html
fairly obviously the wrong cohort the patients with "CFS" in the Light study did not have cytokine profiles consistent with a HGRV infection and were more consistent with chronic anxiety states
We also analyzed samples from patients in the original study that reported XMRV in CFS. We did not find XMRV or related MLVs, either as viral sequences or infectious virus, nor did we find antibodies to these viruses in any of the patient samples, including those from the original study.
How oddly blatant it is that a CAA-funded research group participated in this negative study. The fingerprints at the scene scream out that this combination of researchers suggests something distasteful. ""Follow the money" has never been more fitting...
Can you please explain what they mean, are they saying that WPI tested negatives as positives?
PCR for viral nucleic acids. Four different quantitative PCR assays were developed that detect different regions of the viral genome.
Yes.But this is not as bad as it looks, as all it apparently demonstrates is the Assay used (I am presuming it's Ila Singhs) cannot detect MLV's and XMRV.
That is not the Lombardi methodology
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 23 queries.