XMRV 
							Research - Look to the End 
							
							
							
							
							Since Science magazine published the XMRV research 
							by the WPI, National Cancer Institute and the 
							Cleveland Clinic there have been several attempts to 
							cast doubt on the quality of that research. It seems 
							a strange way to conduct science where the quality 
							of the research and the methods employed to perform 
							the research are seemingly thought of as having been 
							carried out by a couple of amateur scientists and 
							published by a school magazine. 
							
							
							It needs to be re-stated that the original XMRV 
							research was carried out by organisations which are 
							professional and expert in their processes. It also 
							needs to be re-stated that the work was a 
							culmination of years of work and underwent a 
							rigourous six month peer review process by Science 
							magazine before it was published.
							
							Compare this with the recent research 
							using different methodologies and patient cohorts 
							which now have been carried out by Erlwein et al., 
							Imperial College, published online in Plos One
							[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008519] 
							and, more recently, by a 
							new study (published 15 February 2010)
							
							in the 
							online journal  Retrovirology by Harriet C T Groom 
							et al. "Absence of xenotropic murine leukaemia 
							virus-related virus in UK patients with chronic 
							fatigue syndrome" Retrovirology 2010,
							7:10doi:10.1186/1742-4690-7-10 
							[http://www.retrovirology.com/content/7/1/10/abstract].
							Erlwein et al. found no XMRV by 
							nested PCR (0/186) in their samples and the 
							research by Groom et al. has not identified XMRV DNA 
							in any samples either by PCR (0/299). 
							These two studies were not 
							replication studies of the original one published in 
							Science magazine and patients were told to expect 
							negative results by Drs. Klimas and Bell as the 
							first studies are being published. 
							These first studies used different 
							methods when trying to validate their test to detect 
							XMRV in blood samples from CFS patients. 
							We are reminded of Dr Chia's words 
							in his entry in Lost Voices which was published 
							before the discovery of XMRV in CFS. Dr Chia writes 
							-
							
							
							
								
								
									
										| "I realize 
										that many of the assumptions that were 
										made about this illness during the past 
										two decades were erroneous. The 
										discrepant results from different 
										laboratories were probably due to 
										differences in the handling of blood 
										samples, and the sensitivity of the 
										tests used to document the presence of 
										virus in the tissue of ME/CFS patients" | 
								
								 
							and in relation to similar problems 
							of early HIV research -
							
							
							
								
								
									
										| "The 
										problem was solved after this wise 
										researcher sent his workers to another 
										laboratory to learn how to do the test." | 
								
								 
							
							This is what should be done with the 
							XMRV research in order to stop wasting precious time 
							and money. Collaboration and cooperation is the key. 
							We should learn from past mistakes.
							We are sure all this will be well 
							discussed at the IiME May conference. The existence 
							of the XMRV is not questioned and there is a lot of 
							interest in studying this new retrovirus.
							The WPI comments on these two 
							studies can be seen here
							
							http://wpinstitute.org/news/news_current.html -
							Expert opinion discussing this 
							latest study by a virology professor can be found 
							here -
							
							
							http://www.virology.ws/2010/02/15/xmrv-not-found-in-170-additional-uk-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VirologyBlog+%28virology+blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							Fundraising for Invest in ME
							 
						
						We would like to thank Barbara Milson 
						for her event last year which raised money for IiME at 
						the Caterham Dene Fete. We have a picture, along with 
						other recent events, on our fund-raising page -
						
						click here.
						
						
							
							
							
							We 
							recently added articles from Margaret Williams to 
							the web site.
							
							
							
							Some of these articles were part of 
							a larger document which was being created, and which 
							have now been published under the title -
							
							
							
							Magical 
							Medicine: How to Make a Disease Disappear.
							
							
							This 442 page 
							report has been produced to show the failings of the 
							Medical Research Council and specifically the PACE 
							trials.
							
							
							The report addresses the background 
							to the MRC "PACE" Trial on "CFS/ME", the biomedical 
							evidence that disproves the assumptions of the MRC 
							trial Principal Investigators, the many extremely 
							disturbing issues surrounding the PACE Trial, and 
							illustrations from the Manuals used in the trial.
							
							
							The document contains 
							the background to consideration of and quotations 
							from the Manuals for the Medical Research Council's 
							PACE Trial of behavioural interventions for Chronic 
							Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis together 
							with evidence that such interventions are unlikely 
							to be effective and may even be contra-indicated.
							
							
							The failings of the Medical Research 
							Council, past and present, have culminated in an 
							official complaint being made by Professor Malcolm 
							Hooper.
							The links to the 
							Magical Medicine document, and to the 
							formal complaint to the Minister of State 
							responsible for the Medical Research Council, which
							
							Professor Malcolm Hooper has 
							submitted, may be found here -
							
							click here.
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							Magical Medicine in Action
							
							
							
							
						
							
							In the light of this latest epic piece 
							of Hooper/Williams research it is interesting to 
							reflect on the comments of Professor Stephen Holgate 
							of the Medical Research Council (and head of the 
							current MRC panel looking at ME research) in a Times 
							online article on 25 January 2010
							
							
							
							[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article6998742.ece]
							
							
								
								"...As a clinician who sees patients with this 
								group of diseases I recognise there's a real 
								thing here, it's not all psychiatric or 
								psychological. Unquestionably in some of these 
								patients there are abnormalities and biochemical 
								changes in the brain, the central nervous 
								system, the spinal cord or the muscles. My 
								personal view is that we're not dealing with a 
								single condition." 
							
							Even 
							to a lay observer this might then mean there is 
							something wrong in the current process of diagnosis. 
							For the representative of the MRC (an organisation 
							that has consistently maintained that 
							there is a lack of high quality research 
							applications into ME) such an admission that the MRC 
							are not dealing with a "single condition" should 
							obviously make it mandatory that his panel establish 
							a correct set of diagnostic criteria for ME as the 
							basis of future research. 
							Yet 
							nothing has been decided in this area during the two 
							years it has taken to get one meeting arranged by 
							that panel - and time slips by. 
							This 
							should surely also ring alarm bells that the MRC is 
							maintaining a false strategy by continuing to 
							mix the psychosocial and the biomedical factions 
							together which will fudge research and continue to 
							waste lives.
							We 
							have serious doubts about the likelihood of the MRC 
							or their panel ever progressing to the point whereby 
							they fund biomedical research - and the Magical 
							Medicine clearly shows this. 
							So 
							let's test the workings of the MRC panel now. 
							Invest 
							in ME have written to Professor Holgate and invited 
							him to recommend funding of Dr 
							Kerr's recent XMRV proposal (click 
							here). Dr Kerr is a world-class researcher on ME 
							and, although he does hold a place on the latest MRC 
							panel, we wonder if that panel will be allowed to 
							decide whether this is of high enough quality.
							
							
							We have also invited him to standardise on usage of 
							the Canadian Consensus criteria for selecting 
							patients for all future research into ME.
							
							
							
							
							As we have stated previously the issue of research 
							into ME would be relatively simple to resolve if 
							there were no vested invests involved. The MRC are 
							chiefly responsible for this, allowing an 
							environment to exist where suspect research is 
							funded without proper controls and high-quality 
							research is stunted. 
							
							
							Such a situation is described 
							by Pallab Ghosh, 
							science correspondent, BBC News, 2 
							February, 2010 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8490291.stm] 
							in which he writes about biased peer reviewing 
							regarding stem cell research which sounds so similar 
							to the plight of ME researchers. The landmark 
							research by the WPI, National Cancer Institute and 
							the Cleveland Clinic which led to their XMRV and CFS 
							research paper being published in Science magazine, 
							succeeded after six months of rigorous peer 
							reviewing. Yet a paper by Erlwin et al., published 
							in an online Journal PloS ONE, had but a few days of 
							peer reviewing before being widely quoted in the 
							British press in attempts to refute the WPI 
							findings.
As an example Pallab Ghosh writes -
								
								 
									
										| "Stem cell 
										experts say they believe a small group 
										of scientists is effectively vetoing 
										high quality science from publication in 
										journals. In some 
										cases they say it might be done to 
										deliberately stifle research that is in 
										competition with their own."
 | 
								
								 
							
							This seems to have been the case 
							with the MRC and biomedical ME researchers for the 
							past 20 years. Magical Medicine!
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							New 
							Head of CFS Research at CDC
							
							
							
							Across 
							the Atlantic that other inhibitor of progress into 
							ME/CFS - the Centres for Disease Control - has 
							removed Dr William Reeves from the post of Head of 
							CFS Research. This is welcome news for the ME 
							community and the hope is there that change is on 
							the way.
							In our 
							last newsletter (click 
							here) we mentioned that now is the time for 
							change with an opportunity for far-reaching reform 
							of the way research into ME is funded and how 
							government organisations perceive ME. 
							
							
							Yet for some any change will come 
							too late.
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							
							 
							
							
							
							
							Lynn 
							Gilderdale
							
							The tragic story of Lynn 
							Gilderdale's death and the trial of her mother has 
							made ME a story which has now appeared on the front 
							pages of newspapers and as the  main story of 
							television news programs. Invest in ME have 
							refrained from commenting on this case. There are 
							few more words necessary to describe the tragedy and 
							this case is personal and evokes differing views.
							This case has itself been added to 
							the debate on assisted suicide rather than posing 
							the single, simple question which should have been 
							at the front of the coverage by everyone discussing 
							or reporting the case - why did it ever come to the 
							situation where a mother has to participate in the 
							death of her daughter?
							The failings of the government, the 
							Chief Medical Officer and certainly the Medical 
							Research Council ought, perhaps, to have been on 
							trial - or at least examined by the media. Hopefully 
							Professor Hooper's official complaint to the 
							Minister responsible for the MRC may bring forth 
							some examination of a generation of time-wasting, 
							pseudo-science and obfuscation by the establishment.
							If patients such 
							as Lynn had had a diagnosis of diabetes or heart 
							disease there would have been access to all kinds of 
							support and specialist services based on biomedical 
							understanding of the illness and by staff 
							appropriately qualified to help. Due to lack of 
							acceptance of ME as a neurological illness, and the 
							consequent cascade effect of no funding for proper 
							research, then no services have been developed for 
							severely affected pwme. Still it doesn't stop some 
							commentators speculating whether ME exists at all as 
							they continue the myth of the 'chronic fatiguing' 
							illness ME. 
							Invest in ME responded to an 
							editorial article in the British Medical Journal 
							about the case. Our response on the BMJ Rapid 
							Responses web site was not published - so we have 
							published it here -
							
							click here.
							The case of Lynn 
							Gilderdale is reason enough to demonstrate why one 
							cannot marry the psychosocial view of ME with the 
							biological view of the illness and why Professor 
							Holgate's strategy of doing so is seriously flawed.
							The current media 
							interest has been around Lynn but unfortunately 
							there are many others like Lynn lying in their 
							homes being cared for 24 hours a day, not having any 
							medical attention for years. And other cases where 
							children are being forced to exercise and change 
							behaviour to "overcome" their ME. The policies of 
							the MRC for the last generation and the continuing 
							tardiness with which they treat the urgent need for 
							biomedical research is appalling.
							
							
							
							
							
							
							E-petition Response from the Prime Minister's Office
							
							A recent petition initiated by Dave 
							Loomes requested that a public inquiry be set up to 
							investigate the vested interests which have so 
							manipulated the establishment policies around ME - 
							see here 
							
							
							http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22366
							The reply is staggering in its crass 
							refusal to even analyse fully the question posed.
							The government classifies the 
							illness as neurological (G93.3) and yet their reply 
							states that the classification of ME is confusing 
							and controversial since there are five different 
							World Health Organisation categories that could be 
							chosen by a doctor to describe the illness. 
							One can easily identify where the 
							information for this reply comes from. This reply 
							only goes to reinforce the reasons why the MRC will 
							never fund biomedical research into ME.
							The last paragraph of the reply 
							reflects on Professor Peter White's presentation at 
							the Royal Society of Medicine CFS/ME conference held 
							in 2008 where he spoke about the classification 
							needing "sorting out". 
							Patients have no problem with ME 
							ICD10 G93.3 classification. It is quite clear what 
							it means and the reply from the government shows 
							exactly the reasons why Lynn Gilderdale and others 
							like her are left to suffer without any hope of 
							proper treatments.
							
								
								
 
							
							
								
									
									
									
									
									Lost Voices - New Edition
 
							 
							The order for a new edition of Lost 
							Voices has been made.
							The second edition has been updated 
							to include details of the latest research and an 
							additional Voice - Christine Hunter, of the Alison 
							Hunter Memorial Foundation, has allowed Alison 
							Hunter's story to be included. Lost Voices has 
							articles from Annette Whittemore, Dr John Chia and 
							others as well as the stories from people with ME 
							and their families.
							Invest in ME will use the book to 
							further awareness of this illness in the run-up to 
							ME Awareness Month in May and to counter 
							the prejudiced denial of ME - as an 'aberrant 
							belief' rather than a devastating physical 
							illness.  
							We also still have the Sponsor a 
							Book scheme whereby we will send a book to the 
							healthcare (or other) person whom you choose with a 
							message.
							
							More details here.
							
							
							
							
								
								
								
								
								News from the European ME Alliance
								
								
								A new member was added to the European ME 
								Alliance. Switzerland has become the latest 
								country to be represented by the Alliance with 
								Verein CFS Scweiz joining. More details are here 
								-
								
								click here. This brings to nine the number 
								of countries currently represented.
								
								
								
								The EMEA groups are so far organising two 
								conferences this year.
								
								Apart from the IiME conference in 
								London our German colleagues are organising a 
								biomedical research conference in Dortmund, 
								Germany, on 24th September.
								
								The Alliance hopes to have more 
								news of other events planned over 
								the next few months. 
								
								Best Wishes