Talk:Xenotropic murine leukemia virus–related virus

Review in Clinical Microbiology Reviews
10.1128/CMR.00086-15 JFW &#124; T@lk  08:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is full of discredited information
Much of the information in this article is based on work that has been fully discredited. The central paper discussing XMRV's existence in humans, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5952/585, has now been fully retracted by the editor's of the journal, Science. The journals' editors said, in part, "Science has lost confidence in the Report and the validity of its conclusions … We are therefore editorially retracting the Report. We regret the time and resources that the scientific community has devoted to unsuccessful attempts to replicate these results." One of the authors of the retracted article,, was not only fired from her job,

This Wikipedia article gives the impression that XMRV is still considered a threat to the human blood supply. My understanding is that this is no longer true, and that XMRV is no longer believed to infect humans at all. I'm not even sure if XMRV is a real virus but does not infect humans, or if it does not exist at all. In fact, that is what I came to Wikipedia to find out.

This article is so misleading that I believe Wikipedia should reduce it to stub-length if no one is available to correct it. The stub could just say XMRV that at one time, claims were made that XMRV was a virus that caused human illness, but the evidence it caused disease was retracted and whether it is a human pathogen is now in dispute. However, I am the author of an article that offers a competing theory for CFS, so I am potentially biased against the XMRV theory. Therefore, I should not edit this article.

Snopes.com has a much better and more current article concerning this virus (or supposed virus.) This could be used by a Wikipedia editor as the basis of an improved article on XMRV. The Snopes article can be found here: www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/

-- J. Sarayda Shapiro, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.232.54 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * left a note on ip/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When I read the article, it conveys to me that the whole theory has been thoroughly debunked, so I don't find it misleading, but I agree that possibly the article is too long unless someone is interested in the complex history of the research.  Dbfirs  08:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Breast cancer-related regulator of tp53 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)