Talk:Xenotropic murine leukemia virus–related virus/Archive 2

Personal Involvement Claim
In view of the dialogue on my talk page, Personal involvement?, Keepcalmoncarryon has stated that I should recluse myself from editorial involvement in the WPI and XMRV pages. Also see Keepcalmandcarryon's post on the WPI talk page.

For the record I confirm that I am the TerryE who submitted this comment on PLoS ONE using the standard open review process. As I explained on my talk page it was a specific technical review comment relating to the introduction of selection bias into the trial design of the KCH/Imperial study. There was no personal attack on any authors of the study. I had no intention of citing this as an RS in any discussion as I do not consider my academic qualifications in this area sufficient to qualify under Wikipedia criteria. By Keepcalmandcarryon's argument, anyone involved with this page who has also reviewed articles, published articles or other Internet content relating to CFS, XMRV, WPI or any academic source indirectly related to these should recluse themselves also.

However if the consensus amongst editors here is that by giving this comment on PLoS ONE I have disqualified myself from contribution then I will accept that consensus. -- TerryE (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One reflection, I feel that this debate is actually the same as for WPI, so can I request that any comments are made on its talk page -- unless of course you feel that they are specific to this page. -- TerryE (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PCR sensitivity
Discussion copied from


 * why is it absolutely vital to mention the sensitivity of the PlosOne test, but delete any mention of the differences between the two studies (Canadian vs Oxford, fresh WBC vs frozen whole blood, different DNA sequence, PCR and culture vs PCR only, too many to list)? Sam Weller (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objection to removing the sensitivity of the PlosOne test, but it wasn't me who added that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Obvious confounds pointed out on Neuroskeptic's blog. Do we mention them here? Experimental details belong for now in the WPI XMRV controversy Sam Weller (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as failed MEDRS verification in Plos One. Probably WP:SYN using a phrase attributed to McClure in the Reno Gazette. Sam Weller (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources for Wikipedia science articles. With few exceptions, blogs are not reliable sources for any article. In contrast, an article in PLoS ONE could be considered a reliable source. The first sentence in the article's results reads, "Based on A260 of the purified plasmid, both primer sets (XMRV, MLV) were able to amplify a single target copy added to the reaction." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody suggested using a blog as source. "Do we mention them [obvious confounds] here?" was rhetorical and the answer is, "No, of course not." You have not addressed the primary question: why are we reporting an experimental detail for one study and not another? Can I refer you to the sensible comment above:


 * "We are forced, against our usual predilections, to use some primary sources. This doesn't grant us a synthesis licence to engage in unpublished comparisons of various studies. Some studies find XMRV in prostate cancer, others don't; a study reports a CFS association...statements like these should suffice. Readers who need to know if it was 589 patients or 220 controls can find this level of detail in the references." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Talk:Xenotropic_murine_leukemia_virus-related_virus


 * I concur. People who want to know the sensitivity of the Plos One study can find this level of detail in the references. Sam Weller (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thank Sam Weller for this amicable proposal. I shall apply the detail filter to the remainder of the paragraph, leaving a nicely symmetrical: Group-report-conclusion; Group-report-conclusion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks KCCO. Can we now move swiftly to important non-PCR findings reported in Science that AFAIK have not been addressed or cited here, or at WPI controversy?


 * Cell culture experiments revealed that patient-derived XMRV is infectious and that both cell-associated and cell-free transmission of the virus are possible. Secondary viral infections were established in uninfected primary lymphocytes and indicator cell lines after their exposure to activated PBMCs, B cells, T cells, or plasma derived from CFS patients.


 * 1. This is potentially more important than the PCR detection. 2. The London team only tried to validate/replicate WPI's PCR work. What level of detail is appropriate, here and at WPI Controversy? Sam Weller (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both studies used PCR detection of patient samples, albeit different: patient sample criteria, primers, protocols, timescales, coverage ... = different results. Other editors have made qualitative comparisons between these, but the same would no doubt point out if I did so that Wikipedia is not the place to do this. However the WPI study also includes details and data on three other assays which are not covered by the KCH/Imperial study:
 * Antibody tests based on three specific antibodies using intracellular flow cytometry and Western blot assays. All three tested negative against controls but >50% of this patient subsample testing positive.
 * Infectious XMRV test LNCaP cells were co-culture with activated PBMCs from test patient and this culture was then screened using the above tests. Detection rates were 10/12 and 0/12 for CFS patients and controls resp.  The study observed "We also observed cell-free transmission of XMRV from the PBMCs of CFS patients to the T-cell line SupT1 (Fig. 4B) and both primary and secondary transmission of cell-free virus from the activated T cells of CFS patients to normal T cell cultures (Fig. 4C).  Together, these results suggest that both cell-associated and cell-free transmission of CFS-associated XMRV are possible".
 * Immune response tests investigated whether XMRV stimulates an immune response in the patient plasma. The detection results were 9/18 and 0/7 for CFS patients and controls resp.


 * WPI have continued their work and tabled updated data and finding at a number of presentations subsequent to the original paper release. However, they have not chosen to release them through PLoS ONE or equivalent rapid publishing service, and I don't believe that these data therefore fall under WP:MEDRS.  They have shared their protocols, etc., with various research institutes and "big pharma", so I guess that we need to await further publication before adding further content to the article.  --  TerryE (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PLoS ONE is not at all a "rapid publishing service", nor is its peer-review process any less stringent than that of Science. When a publication is deemed sufficiently important to public health (as in the case of Erlwein et al., according to the authors, because the proper maybe XMRV is associated was morphing rapidly into XMRV causes, and patients should talk with their physicians about starting antiretrovirals), a journal's editor can encourage reviewers to expedite the review, select reviewers who agree to clear a chunk of time immediately, etc. The Erlwein et al paper was succinct, had proper controls and would have been an easy review. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry you misinterpret my comment. Reread it.  It had nothing to do with the Erlwein paper on this occasion. I leave those sorts of comparison to RS.  However, there are differences between the sort of review and publishing processes of Science vs. PLoS ONE, but IMHO these are more to do agility of the lifecycle if the authors constitute proper review processes. My comment was a note of regret that WPI did not release their supplementary findings through PLoS ONE thus bringing them under MEDRS. -- TerryE (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two more XMRV studies released
Details not yet available: -- TerryE (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trottier G, Fleshner NE "Re: XMRV Is Present in Malignant Prostate Epithelium and Is Associated With Prostate Cancer, Especially High-grade Tumors.", Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):358.
 * Stieler K, Schulz C, Lavanya M, Aepfelbacher M, Stocking C, Fischer N. "Host range and cellular tropism of the human exogenous gammaretrovirus XMRV", Virology. 2010 Jan 26.


 * The first reference is a brief editorial summary of (and comments on) the PNAS 2009 paper of the given title.


 * The second reports that XMLV env-pseudotyped MLV virus particles can enter cells from wild mice, pigs, cows, dogs, monkeys and mink and that the putative receptor molecule is ubiquitously expressed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I realise that the first is a comment on which is one of the papers cited in this article, but according Pubmed, no abstract or copies are currently available; as to the second I read the abstract and understand what it says. It seems as if you have pull the article down from Elsevier.  My only reason for this flag was to alert the other editors about two new papers: -- TerryE (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus
Proposed wording:

Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations.

Ward20 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A more reliable source would be needed to include blood supply safety information in this article. CFSAC and CFIDS are not reliable sources for an article in this category. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the references for the first sentence, which verifies the material, is a meeting by the HHS Advisory Comittee on Blood Safety And Availability, published by the U.S. Department of of Health and Human Services, and transcribed by a court reporter. This is a RS.


 * "...we have become aware in the last month of another emerging infectious disease. It is emerging in the sense that we are finding more about this virus and the virus you actually do have papers in your handout is called XMRV and this is xenotropic murine leukemia related virus. This was identified a few years ago to be associated with individuals with prostate cancer. And on October 8th there was a report in Science that the virus was also detected in individuals that had chronic fatigue syndrome. So I don't want to spend a lot of time. I just want you to be aware of this. That within the Department I have presented at the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome advisory committee to explain a little bit about what we are doing to monitor this and also to investigate some of the findings. And the Department is taking this very seriously and looking at, first of all, standardizing the tests that the researchers have used to detect this virus and then also potentially we will be looking at our recipients and donor repositories to investigate not only the prevalence but also if this virus can be transmitted by blood products."


 * The CFIDS association source adds more material on the Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group and the scope of their investigation according to them. No medical claims are made that would have to fall under MEDRS. They are also a RS, and present no conflicting or controversial material. Ward20 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The CFIDS source is not a RS for claims about US government agencies, and a statement by one individual (associated, by the way, with the CFSAC) in a primary transcript is of doubtful import to this article. I would certainly accept an official statement by the HHS itself, but trawling through primary sources for an assertion by one individual that "the Department is taking this very seriously" is venturing into original research. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A query to WP:MED could be useful. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See . Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About the same time I posted to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard Ward20 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you not notice that one of the RS that Ward supplied was from www.hhs.gov/ophs/bloodsafety/advisorycommittee/pastmeetings/transcripts? Also if you care to watch the two days video (IIRC its one the first day) linked on HHS CFSAC page you can see Dr Holmberg read the statement himself :-) -- TerryE (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was day 2. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_rzD3ndg4 -- not RS but a truncated clip of the above. You'll need to search through the full day's broadcast, sorry.  -- TerryE (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A transcript of what one person said in a meeting is hardly an official statement from the HHS. As Scray stated at WP:MED, insistence on including this speculation is simply soapboxing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I was just trying to clarify a point, well two point's (i) This topic was discussed at the HHC meeting, and (ii) I was a bit brief since I assumed that you would check through the sources. The CFIDS document is a scan of a statement from Dr Holmerg.  Dr Holmberg is not associated with CFIDS.  He is chair of the HHC BWC.  Yes, this might be an elaborate fraud on the part of CFIDS, apart from the fact that Dr Holmberg read also read out statement at the CFSAC meeting, which why I suggested that you look at the video recording on the HHC website. A statement from the chairman of the responsible working group is hardly speculation on my part or soapboxing.


 * However, what is perhaps a more relevant argument is that this work is still under way, and the outputs are still to be published. From the lack of further coverage since this announcement, perhaps we should err on the side of caution and assume that the HHC and AABB don't want to speculate before the evidence it gathered. Any mention of this point on the XMRV page should be done lightly, eg.
 * The DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has begun an investigation into potential impacts of the findings reported in this paper.
 * or equivalent -- TerryE (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WP:MED has made quite clear that there is no consensus for addition of such speculation to this or other articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) First, apologies for getting his title wrong. I had to rewatch the video transcript as I asked you to do. Though, I do like how you described the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS making this statement on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Blood Safety Officer with the HCC to CFIDS, the advisory committee convened by the Secretary of Health to advise on CFS policy as "a doctor in a court transcript". It's no wonder that they agreed with you. Why didn't you go the whole hog and describe him as "some bloke reading out a statement to this other bunch of people". I have contacted the respondents through their talk pages, pointing out your deliberate misreporting of the facts and I have asked them to reconsider their decision. -- TerryE (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * JFW has asked that the MED discussion be continued on this talk page. This issue is really determined by three questions:
 * Do we accept that Dr Holmberg is the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS making a statement on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Blood Safety Officer with the HCC
 * Do we accept that the facsimile copy of the written statement provided on the CFIDS webpage HHS Coordinating Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus (XMRV) Scientific Activities (PDF) is an true copy of that statement.
 * If we accept assertions #1 and #2 (which is just a matter of watching the videos of the CFSAC meeting on the HHS website), do we think that this statement, plus the minutes of the the HHS meeting referenced above as RS to support the inclusion of a sentence on this issue?
 * If we also accept assertion #3 then we can move onto agreeing a suitable sentence. With regards to #1 and #2 on the MED discussion, I don't think that there were any challenges to these once we had provided the correct information.  The views on #3 were split; there was no consensus view. -- TerryE (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to JFW, Scray, Whatamidoing and I, none of this satisfies WP:MEDRS and there's no justification to include this agenda-driven speculation based upon the primary transcript of one individual's opinion in a statement to an advisory committee. No amount of personal accusations of misreporting, etc. changes this. No amount of agitation for second opinions, etc., makes these sources reliable for a medicine-related article. Please find a more appropriate venue for your XMRV/CFS advocacy work. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * JFW and Scray based their reply on your "a doctor in a court transcript" summary, and haven't posted back since I pointed out the facts. Whatamidoing doing said "You've really got to tell us what you want to say here. That Holmberg issued a press release? Fine. That XMRV causes CFS? Not fine." which since we are trying to discuss his release of a statement = fine to me.  So your "no, no, no "actually is "don't know, don't know, ok".  But just tell me Keepcalmandcarryon, what is your view on assertions #1 and #2.  Do you accept them or do you refute them.  If the latter, on what basis. -- TerryE (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please attempt to assume some good faith of other editors, especially of those more experienced and respected than I: I'm not sure who should be more insulted by your insinuations: I or JFW and Scray, whom you seem to assume have no conception whatever of the issues at hand. Feel free to ask them if they've changed their minds. But I stand by my statement: Holmberg is a doctor, an advisor (he's not the head of the HHS or the CDC), and we're discussing a primary transcript by a court reporter. There's no press release. There's no official statement by any government agency. There's only a statement of personal opinion by a medical advisor to an advisory council. Nothing about this is MEDRS or even, in my opinion, RS. It's original research. Until a government agency issues a press release that's reported in the media, there's no story here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be talking solely about a transcript but I am talking about a written statement read out by Holmberg. I wasn't relying on a court recorder.  I was relying on my ears, by listening to a video recording of the session served from the HHS site.  I have asked you to listen to it too.  Just because you haven't done so doesn't mean that this video transcript doesn't exist. -- TerryE (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to observe that you're going the way of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A transcript or a video of proceedings is not an official statement by a government agency. Somebody once said something about this issue, but it's not notable and it doesn't represent policy. As such, there's no story here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know that you said that before, but our original quote was Dr Holmberg, &lt;who he is&gt;, issued a statement that ... We weren't intending to couch this as a "Formal HHS Announcement", just a statement of fact. Can you give me a Wikipedia policy reference which supports your assertion that "A transcript or a video of proceedings is not an official statement by a government agency." and that this means thatsuch a statement isn't an RS and of course I'll defer on this issue -- until that is an AABB or HHS statement is forthcoming or we have a newspaper RS since you seem to think that these are definitive. -- TerryE (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More sources about the blood investigation (Starting on page 9). Ward20 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I don't find the proposed statement particularly inflammatory, neither do I find it very informative. For readers of the WP article, the reference carries very little weight - a verbal record from a member of an advisory committee, stating that something's being evaluated, is not notable - especially when one of the evaluations is of the laboratory methods themselves due to discrepant results.  No impact on blood safety has been demonstrated; no disease has been shown to be caused by XMRV; the disease associations are controversial; the tests are not standardized and there is a problem with discrepant results.  Any statement regarding XMRV and blood safety would need to be very clear that no hazard has been identified, and that the first step is to determine whether XMRV poses any threats to humans at all.  -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scray. In my opinion, it's best to wait until the science is a bit more clear (and there's now another study finding no relation of XMRV with CFS) and a government agency has made an official statement about the issue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Scray's commentary that material added at this point wouldn't be very informative is very sensible. I hope that Scray will watch this page and help, if or when material that will be informative becomes available from reliable sources. Ward20 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see an issue with inclusion of some of the above aslong as one changes it to "some studies show a possible association between XMRV and CFS / prostate CA" and "a committee will look at safety". This seems like a simple uncontroversial statement.  Any hint of a concern no matter how small will lead to an assessment after the HIV issues from a few decades ago.  Heads rolled around the world after this and everyone in the transfusion community is jumpy.  Remember one only needs the highest quality references for controversial statements.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

References in this section


Main article reference to WPI
With the recent removal of all MEDRS related content from the WPI article, it seems a nonsense to refer to it using the Main article convention in this context. I have therefore removed this wording and instead linked to the articles referencing the authors' institutes / departments. I decided that the WPI, parent of the lead authors, should come first. However, there is an argument to put the NCI first since most authors cited in the paper came from the three NCI departments involved in this study, so if anyone feels that I have the order wrong then please reorder. -- TerryE (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What was removed from the WPI article was material not conforming with WP:MEDRS. As for the order, it's probably not necessary to mention the other institutes at all. WPI hosted the bulk of the work and is the employer of the lead and corresponding authors. Furthermore, WPI is associated intimately with this report, whereas the Cleveland Clinic and NCI are not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The paper itself (e.g. the starred authors caveat) makes your claim false, does it not? -- TerryE (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You removed all medical content from the WPI article on the grounds that it was from primary sources. If you want to start arguing about what content from primary sources is valid then we now have 170 words on current REF1; 30 words on REF7 which is another major paper; 42 words on an important but narrower scoped follow up study.  I would point out that if we applied the same argument to this article then we would have no content left.  These ratios reflect your editing biases which are personal and subjective, rather than any consistent application of MEDRS logic. -- TerryE (talk)


 * The corresponding author is from WPI and the first lead author is from WPI. The samples were WPI samples. The bulk of the work was done at WPI. A few of the samples were tested at NCI or Cleveland Clinic.
 * As I have told you repeatedly, both here and in personal correspondence, and as you have repeatedly ignored in favour of making false statements about me, I have no personal bias. I am neither a CFS patient nor involved in CFS research as are your "inner circle" of co-editors. In fact, as I have also stated, I am fascinated by this novel retrovirus and I truly hope further research brings relief to patients: with CFS, prostate cancer or both. I am simply an editor interested in viruses who is attempting to minimise distortions introduced to Wikipedia by those whose interest in this topic is indeed personal and who have long used Wikipedia as a soapbox for their (mostly little-supported) medical ideas. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have spent a lot of discussion on this page to achieve this précising of one major paper to 30 words removing all technical synopsis, whilst another is 170 words to include a technical synopsis, and narrower scoped follow-on the first is 42 words.  I didn't say what or why this bias occurs, but this is an apt technical term for this observation.  I was rather hoping for a direct response to my question: why do you want to cull the content of a paper on a possible association of XMRV and CFS when we don't do the same cull on a paper on a possible association of XMRV and prostate cancer? -- TerryE (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When only one study makes an unusual and unusually strong claim; when that study was performed by an institute founded by individuals with a personal and/or professional stake in the unusual claim; and when subsequent studies have arrived at a completely contradictory conclusion...it's best, if not to remove all mention of the original claim, at least to minimise what we write about it. Were it not for the striking amount of media coverage of the story, it would probably be best to remove this section from the article. In comparison with the CFS studies, multiple independent laboratories have found evidence for and against a prostate cancer/XMRV tie. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about and what has this to do with this paper? This is a bizarre personal theory which is not supported by any expert commentary.  I just pointed out above that Frank Ruscetti of the NCI was an equal principle co-author of the paper.  Even if we suspend credulity for a moment and accept your theory then what about the other seven authors from the NCI and the Cleveland Clinic? I am just speechless.  This is an indefensible position. -- TerryE (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientific studies are usually said to originate from the organisation/institute of the corresponding author. Bizarre? Perhaps, but not to a scientist. The corresponding author usually coordinates and oversees the various projects and processes that culminate in a publication. That's why the news coverage of the XMRV/CFS controversy consistently mentions Mikovits and WPI as the discoverers. Many stories don't mention NCI or Cleveland Clinic at all (see, for example, the BBC, The Economist and NPR). Those that mention others speak of "collaborators" or "colleagues", not of co-equal article owners (see the New York Times, which, whilst mentioning the other institutes, entitled a piece, "A big splash from an upstart medical center" after WPI, not NCI or CC).
 * Bizarre or not, I don't know why this particular primary study merits discussion of its authors' affiliations whilst those behind so many of the papers in this article are ignored. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about WP:MEDRS. What has popular press coverage got to do with this? If I started quoting newspapers here, you would be one of the first to criticise this.  -- TerryE (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Was asked to comment here. I think this issue is a minor point. The XMRV virus is currently barely notable. One study of a couple hundred people, no review of the topic, another study that did not support the conclusions. This is research and has not reached clinical significance. It is thus not something that Wikipedia should really concentrate on.

WRT what research institutes should be mentioned the paper does mention that lead authors came from the WPI and NCI so sure list both however drop the Cleveland clinic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

XMRV at CROI
Stephen Goff gave a good overview of XMRV at CROI last Friday, 19 February. He emphasised that no disease association (and certainly no disease causation) has yet been proven, referring to the field as very controversial. Goff discussed the genomic relation of XMRV with other X-MLVs and described a search for an XMRV relative in a large number of mouse strains and species. Relevant to this article and Whittemore Peterson Institute and proposals to include details from the WPI study, Goff mentioned that PCR analysis must be used to resolve the current contradictions, as PCR is more specific and sensitive than antibody-based methods. Goff mentioned that positive antibody results could be down to cross-reactivity...indeed, many of the antibodies used to date have been broadly reactive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Same source: Prachi Sharma “reported that acutely infected monkeys tested positive for virus replicating in a number of tissues. Chronic infection, though, appeared largely limited to CD4+ T cells in lymphoid organs -- spleen, lymph nodes, and GI tract -- as well as in reproductive organs, including prostate, testes, ovaries, vagina, and cervix.” Abstract 150 LB: “wide dissemination of replicating virus even when the plasma viral load was undetectable.”Sam Weller (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

XMRV at GU 2010

 * See Characterization of XMRV in prostate cancer -- TerryE (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How to add no XMRV found in controls?
I wanted to ask for people's opinions on how to add that no XMRV was found in controls as well as not being found in CFS patients in the three negative European XMRV/CFS studies. This seems like a pertinant point to bring up, considering that several studies which did find XMRV also found it in between roughly 2-4% of controls. There currently are three seperate sentences, each dealing with a specific XMRV-negative study, it seems like it might get repetitive to state in each sentence that no XMRV was found in controls in addition to patients but I do think it's worth mentioning if anyone has any ideas on how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.163 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If a source that meets WP:MEDRS could be found that explains the possible blood supply transmission issue similar to the WSJ it could be described in the transmission section. Although the WSJ article is well written it doesn't seem to qualify as meeting WP:MEDRS last I looked. If a source like medscape or a public health agency published something similar then I would expect that source could be used for material in the transmission section. Ward20 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Blood Services Refusing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Donors
Yesterday, Canadian Blood Services became the first to refuse blood donations from CFS patients because of the potential presence of this virus because it is related to the HIV retrovirus and there is still little known about its effects. Weaponofmassinstruction (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have previously opposed inclusion of blood supply speculation, but this is a real-world consequence and should probably be mentioned now. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New XMRV review article
Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Prostate Cancer Ward20 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus
This section has some wording that significantly deviates from sources and changes the meanings. "May not be effective", is not the same as, "did not know whether it would be susceptible". The wording, "although she has not provided evidence for these assertions" is WP:OR by an editor. "WPI's claims" is not in the sources given. The sources state the "Science article" prompted Health Canada. Correcting accordingly. Ward20 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit
Reintroduced non-MEDRS material, inaccuracies and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH discussed in sections above without discussion and consensus. Reverting. Ward20 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My edits were explained above. ME activists who edit Wikipedia are certainly welcome to disagree with the sources, but they are not welcome to exclude reliably sourced information simply because it is inconsistent with their agenda. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is nothing about ME activists, but about editors trying to interpret the WP policies and guidelines to maintain the quality of the article. -- TerryE (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

CFS Expert?
I notice that there has been a revert/revert on whether it is POV or not to describe Prof Wessely as a "CFS Expert". The referenced paper describes the him as "professor of psychological medicine"; his own page describes him as "professor of epidemiological and liaison psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London and head of its department of psychological medicine". Whilst he clearly has a depth of expertise in CBT, GET and psychological treatments of CFS which are major aspect of CFS, he has no qualifications or specific expertise in virology or any related biomedical fields. The use of "CFS Expert" in the context of an analysis of the possible associations of XMRV with CFS is in my opinion misleading, and I feel that many of the editors on this page would find it contentious in this context. We should not be using this sort of overloaded and unsupported description here. It is also not clear in this context that these two were authors of one of the studies and therefore not independent. I would suggest that we stick to the clear facts: "contributors to one of these studies, psychologist Simon Wessely and virologist Myra McClure, ..." -- TerryE (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was me who reverted this back, but I don't have any particular attachment to whether or not Wessely is described as a CFS expert in the article. I reverted it because the ip address in question was making a load of POV edits to other CFS articles and this also seemed to be POV motivated.


 * Wessely clearly is a CFS expert - he has authored many high quality peer reviews, and he is an acknowledged expert. He clearly does have 'related biomedical' expertise considering he has done so many studies looking into the neuroendocrine and immune aspects of CFS. Whether we should say 'CFS expert' in the article is another question, and I don't have any particular opinion either way. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sw, I am not disputing Wessely's clear expertise in CFS, but rather that CFS is a rather broad domain and Wessely's expertise is in a sub-domain of CFS that isn't directly related to possible virological implications. I think that the current wording is fine, though I am a little confused by the following sentences: "However these claims are not supported by information given in the Science paper. The cohort was not described as such in the original Science paper." These are confusing and seem mutually contradictory.  -- TerryE (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why the opinions from editorials and newspapers are used in this article in any case. It is not MEDRS. The review article above covers all these issues without the he said she said. I suggest this article use the review, go back to MEDRS, and not get bogged down with opinions from editorials and newspapers. Ward20 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I think we should just remove everything from "Addressing these contradictory results..." onwards. It's not MEDRS, seems to be some OR in there, and the last sentence doesn't even make sense and is unreferenced. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Non MEDRS material removed per above. I want to add the review article to what is left so there is a higher quality source. I believe the review article can support the material with almost no wording changes, but I want to go read it a few more times. Ward20 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The corresponding author of the Science article added to the Science findings in news media interviews. This is relevant and reliably-sourced, and has had obvious results. The article should not claim (at least not without medically reliable sources) that XMRV causes CFS. It can report that certain researchers assert that XMRV causes CFS, just as our AIDS article can assert that certain individuals believe HIV does not cause AIDS.


 * As for Wessely as CFS expert: in addition to his publication record, he is one of the most-quoted researchers in CFS-related articles in the media. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to call him the world's foremost expert on CFS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I thought that we were trying to keep this article to tight MEDRS content at least that was the consensus strategy before I went on holiday. Since when has intoducing essays from "high profile" sources such as an online Canadian news source "TheSpec.com" fallen into this category? OK use of this as a secondary source for reporting a local issue, Health Canada's disallow blood donations from CFS patients, is just about acceptable but in this context -- no. I also note that we have a typical rephrasing of the quote so: I am not unopposed in principle to including relevant quotations from authors here, but if we go down this route then we need to allow a balance inclusion from all factions and representing all sides, so as we've discussed before then we should not do this lightly. We are already using the WPI article as a vehicle for these non MEDRS issues, so why not hold this debate there? My vote for now is not to introduce such loose RS based reportage.
 * (The virus) undoubtedly causes some of the symptoms that are associated with it (chronic fatigue) becomes:
 * XMRV undoubtedly causes some of the symptoms of CFS (note the dropping of "that are associated with").

Re Wessely, it would be a stretch to call him the world's foremost expert on CFS. As I said above this whole section of reporting from an editorial in the BMJ (and therefore RS rather MEDRS) is confusing to read, so I went back to the RS itself and relooked at what they said and how we could accurately and coherently summary this point, and I came up with this:
 * Contributors to the second of these studies, psychiatrist Simon Wessely and virologist Myra McClure, subsequently discussed these contradictory results in the British Medical Journal. They quoted unreferenced information given by the authors of the fourth study that the patient cohort for the first study came from an outbreak of CFS near Lake Tahoe in the mid-1980s, even though this was inconsistent with both the supplementary data presented in the first study itself and also subsequently clarifications by its authors.

Given that this is an editorial in the BMJ and the authors are notable domain experts, perhaps some content does have relevance to this article (though this again introduces the issue of balancing alternative comments). However, do we really want to point out that Wessely and McClure were using inaccurate unpublished heresay as a basis for their editorial? I don't think that this isn't helpful to them or to the readability of this article. -- TerryE (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with TerryE - I don't think this stuff adds anything and it's skirting MEDRS. It would be fine in the WPI XMRV controversy article though. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would certainly agree as well if it weren't for the fact that most of the sourcing for the entire article skirts MEDRS. Given the large number of primary sources supporting this article, expert commentary in the BMJ is practically akin to review. Of interest, this commentary also suggests a possible explanation for the disparate results of the WPI group and several other groups.


 * As for what is and is not MEDRS, the policy does not mean that every sentence in a medicine-related article must be sourced to a scientific literature review; rather, it means that every statement about the science itself must be so sourced. In some medicine-related articles, reception, effects on popular culture and so forth are also described. For example, our article on AIDS includes sections on economic impact, social stigma and AIDS denialism, and the sources for these sections do not uniformly and strictly satisfy MEDRS. Nor must they. Although several of our opinionated CFS "inner circle" editors apparently have a strong interest in deleting WPI's causation statements, they are notable, sourced and illustrate why so much rancour has developed around the XMRV issue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going down that road then there is a press release from WPI saying that they tested the patients of the Netherlands team and actually found XMRV in the samples. So that would imply that the problem is with the tests rather than the patients being different. (But I'm not suggesting we even add that, because I think it is too speculative and not really MEDRS). I agree that not everything in the article needs to meet MEDRS, but when you are talking about the results of scientific experiments on patients shouldn't that meet MEDRS? --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see and appreciate your point, but we're not talking about the actual results of a scientific experiment. We're talking about what the WPI's lead investigator has said (not in a press release, but in interviews with the Toronto Sun and Ham Spectator) about her Institute's results. Not only does the Science paper mention the possibility of virus causation, the lead investigator says that XMRV "definitely causes". Perhaps you're right that this information is better suited exclusively for the WPI article (from which, I would note, the same two editors have sought to remove it as well). However, given the manner in which the WPI's strikingly unusual behaviour and founding history have shaped the XMRV-CFS debate, it seems to me that inclusion is better than exclusion in this particular case. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But hasn't WPI said their samples didn't come from Incline Village? I don't see how adding that potentially incorrect speculation helps us, even if it is in a BMJ editorial. I agree about WPI's unusual behaviour. Along those lines, my inclination would be to add their comment about the negative results being an insurance conspiracy theory (I think we mention this in the WPI controversy article, unless it has been removed). --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you sw, we are not talking about WPI comments. What we've just been talking about Profs SW and MM quoting unreferenced comments "van Kuppeveld and colleagues provide the additional information reported at a conference last year that the patients in question came from ... Incline village ..." and drawing conclusions from this when there is no substance to back this up. The media controversy and this non-MEDRS chit-chat is covered in a section in the WPI article.  Let's not confuse what is a fairly clear article here with this.


 * CFS "inner circle" -- a tedious and irrelevant repetition that has nothing to do with this debate. Please stop this. -- TerryE (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sciencewatcher, it seems we agree that something in this article should allude to the strange behaviour of WPI, which has been rather bemusing to most scientists following this subject and may, to some, resemble activism more than science. Whether this is done through the conspiracy theory or the apparent discrepancies in what WPI reports at conferences and in their paper is not a major concern for me.
 * TerryE, van Kuppeveld and colleagues reference their statements to Mikovits's presentation in Lisbon. It's in their paper. There's nothing here or in Wessely/McClure that's unreferenced. And I'm sorry to bring up your "inner circle" comment again, but it's an excellent illustration of the pronounced POV and single purpose with which you and others edit CFS-related articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I now understand my confusion.  The SW/MM editorial contains the text:
 * Although the patients were not well described in the original study, van Kuppeveld and colleagues provide the additional information reported at a conference last year that the patients in question came from an outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome at Incline village on the northern border of Lake Tahoe in the mid-1980s. Whether or not this was a genuine cluster was never established,11
 * but reference 11 has nothing to do with this, though reference 1 is the vanK paper which does contain as you say the statement:
 * Recently, at the Tri-Society Annual Conference 2009 in Lisbon, a presentation reported that the peripheral blood mononuclear cells were derived from patients from the outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome at Incline village at the northern border of Lake Tahoe, United States (1984- 5).19
 * Unfortunately when you pull ref 19 at this paper, doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2009.07.043, it's a high level overview which doesn't support this statement. Moreover the Science paper itself states that
 * Banked samples were selected for this study from patients fulfilling the 1994 CDC Fukuda Criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and presenting with severe disability. Samples were selected from several regions of the United States where outbreaks of CFS had been documented. [My emphasis]
 * So SW/MM chose to omit the more relevant description from the original paper, instead substituting heresay from another paper, which has since been specifically refuted by the authors of the Science paper / conference presenters prior to the publicatrion of the SW/MM editorial. This is a mess, and a flawed RS, which comes back to my earlier point: if we are going to reference it then we will have to expose the whole can of worms.  What value does any of this add to the XMRV article? Better to omit it. -- TerryE (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it is a mess. And as I pointed out above there is just as good hearsay "evidence" that it is the tests that are different rather than the patients. But really we need to wait until someone figures it out and puts it in a peer reviewed journal. I have my bets on the CDC. As for criticism of the Science article, you might want to use this or this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is certainly a mess. There is a mass of contradictory information on WPI's patients emanating from the Science paper itself and the conference presentation by Mikovits (the samples were from the DeFreitas/Koprowski patients from PNAS, 1991; the samples were freshly drawn and from all over the US; the samples were from Incline Village patients), from Internet chatter (the samples were from Dr. Peterson's personal collection; the samples never came close to Dr. Peterson) and from the subsequent (non-peer-reviewed) PR statements from WPI. As for "flawed RS", the BMJ articles from recognised experts in CFS and retrovirology are certainly better RS, even with any flaws they may have, than the WPI statements that some CFS patients and physicians quote as holy writ. Statements in the peer-reviewed literature, even those based on what TerryE refers to as "hearsay" (i.e., a referenced conference abstract), are vastly preferable to press releases and internet chatter from WPI and its partisans. It's not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors to use original research (van Kuppeveld don't supply the entire text of Mikovits's presentation, so they are wrong) to choose WPI PR statements over peer-reviewed literature Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not choosing WPI over vanK, SW or whatever, though I do agree that you are trying to suppress WPIs input here. I did observe that both vanK and SW/MM were strangly inconsistent in ignoring explicit content from a paper that they cited, instead referencing an unrecorded quote from conference. It's a mess and best avoided in this article.  I am happy  leaving it to reporting of the controversy as you propose.  -- TerryE (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They didn't ignore it. They pointed out an inconsistency. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To me something like "ref X states A, but at a conference discussion the paper after embargo release the authors said B" is pointing out an inconsistency. Saying that ref X does not describe something when the supplementary data does include a reasonable description suggests to me that they didn't bother to review the supplementary data properly.  -- TerryE (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Update of External links
I noticed that the AABB has updated its fact sheet on XMRV so that the external link for this is no longer valid. I therefore updated the link. Reading it, this strikes me as a good example of how an article on XMRV can adopt an encyclopaedic tone. Siggghhh. I also noticed that there is a rather dated blog entry for Mar 07. I decided to remove this and substitute the CDC's information page on XMRV. -- TerryE (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording of link to WPI article coverage section
I see that K has reverted an earlier change by IP74.51.82.163, quoting as agreed on the talk page. Actually it wasn't. The proposal was in the audit history of the insertion. However whilst I think that the link concept is sound I think that considerable controversy is overstating this. I suggest the milder some coverage and controversy is more appropriate. -- TerryE (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Reported in SCIENCE"
@IP86.148.134.182, The reason that I've removed this reference to Science is that there are many MEDRS referenced in this article. This quote would be the only one to add the actual source journal name. The journals are clearly identified in the references. There is no attack or implication of lack of the reputability of this article, but rather a factual statement that three other studies failed to find evidence of XMRV in CFS patients. Trying to infer that a paper in Science is more worthy than a paper in the BMJ, say, is unencyclopaedic. We leave comparisons between articles to MEDRS secondary and tertiary reviews. Hence my interpretation: WP:UNDUE. -- TerryE (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mikovits & Ruscetti, response to comments on Lombardi et al 2009

 * Response to Comments on "Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" (Mikovits & Ruscetti 2010)


 * Supporting Material (information on patient samples): (URL in above source anyway)

These new sources should help clear up the confusion.

_ Tekaphor ( TALK ) 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Study in Respiratory tract
There is a study in Germany that found the virus in both healthy controls and slightly larger amount in immuno compromised individuals...

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/16/6/pdfs/10-0066.pdf

"Xenotropic murine leukemia virus–related gammaretrovirus (XMRV) has been recently associated with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome. To identify nucleic acid sequences, we examined respiratory secretions by using PCR. XMRV-specific sequences were detected in 2%–3% of samples from 168 immunocompetent carriers and ≈10% of samples from 161 immunocompromised patients."

Judderwocky (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks but the information is already in the article. Ward20 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reviews of XMRV
Currently one review is mentioned. This latest one should be added. The human retrovirus XMRV in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome Robert H. Silverman, Carvell Nguyen, Christopher J. Weight & Eric A. Klein  About the authors

UYBS (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The other review could be added and the wording changed to "Two reviews state". I am not sure it tells the reader any more information, but if the material is verifiable in the cited reference, I don't see why not. Ward20 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will change the one to two, and put in the reference.UYBS (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Material from the new review, The human retrovirus XMRV in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome by Robert H. Silverman, Carvell Nguyen, Christopher J. Weight & Eric A. Klein (full text link) could replace much of the primary sourced construction, improve the article, and hopefully stabilize the article somewhat. I don't have the time to dig into it right now, maybe later. I hope others feel free to use the review. Ward20 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

References in this section


Judy Mikovits article
Not sure this is the most appropriate place, but I couldn't think of a better one. A Judy Mikovits article has recently been created and proposed for deletion based on notability concerns. The AfD entry is here. As written, it certainly fails to indicate notability. Personally, I think the discovery of a possible link between CFS and XMRV is far more important than Judy Mikovits herself, but I thought I'd bring it up here where it would get more notice in case others felt differently and wanted to try rescuing the article. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) mikovits clearly needs her own page, peterson, the whittemores, and others all have their own page, dr mikovits has a life and career outside of the WPI, the WPI are her employers, therefore she needs her own page, she is certainly notable enough, by your arguement barack obama should be filed under "american government" rather than his own page, I doubt you would want to be defined by your employer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.177.72 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Back-and-forth editing
This incessant back-and-forth reverting and counter-reverting is unproductive. It wastes time that could perhaps be used to improve the article in other respects. Can't we at least try to discuss the problem here on the talkpage? bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just the one user causing problems. Have a look and you'll see this user has been causing havoc on quite a few articles for the past month or so, and has been blocked at least once. It is probably a banned user. I think the only solution is page protection for the articles in question. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)--sciencewatcher (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

please note that when you do that look in the archives you will see that actually sciencewatcher is the one creating havoc, he has been playing these dirty tricks for years, he has some issue with me and other IP editors and is trying to slander IP editors so he can continue running these pages like they are his own, please use common sense and stop people like sciencewatcher trying to slander people, he clearly has some sort of personal issue with me and other IP editors, I do not know why, he keeps claiming all IP editors are the same person which seems very paranoid becuase they all have different IP's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Also please note the offtopic rant by sciencewatcher that was moderated in a previous section above, and also please note that its not suprising to people in volved in these wiki pages that sciencewatcher is trying to get the pages locked, he wants to regain control of the pages clearly, which would be a travesty both in regards to wikipedia and democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see my comment here. While this is all very amusing, it's just wasting everyone's time. Oh and you might want to investigate www.ip2location.com lol --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

lol your comments re the IP are totally irrelevent becuase they are clearly different people, if you think because they are both BT then they are the same person then you clearly are not familiar with how IP works, I think it is you that is wasting time here and muddying the waters, this is a page for discussin PAGE CONTENT not trying to stir up trouble and I assume you know that BT is the biggest internet provider in the uk so there are millions of people using it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you discuss page content?
 * Is it possible to work towards a wording that everybody is happy with?
 * bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a note to this discussion, I've requested semi-protection to stop the edit warring. The IP's point is well taken that the studies have failed to replicate the methodology of the original test, but the fact that they haven't discovered any significant amount of XMRV with different methodologies is not insignificant. I think Ward's suggestion (in the previous topic) of using the recent review is probably the best bet in this matter, as it seems to cover most of the relevant reasons why there might be differences in the results. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

XMRV and WPI
Two more papers about XMRV, from researchers associated with the WPI

(1) "Addendum: Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome." (Mikovits et al 2010) http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/40/article/12486

(2) "Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus: current research, disease associations and therapeutic opportunities." (Mikovits & Lombardi & Ruscetti 2010) http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/thy.10.39

I don't know if these pass everyone's interpretation of "MEDRS" but hopefully they will help to further alleviate the ignorance about patient cohorts, methodological differences, and the rumours about "contamination".

Extract from the first paper: "Neither the WPI nor NCI labs where PCR was performed had ever worked with mouse tissues or had been exposed to XMRV from other sources. The env sequences amplified from LNCaP cells infected by patient PBMCs exhibit less similarity to mouse genomic DNA than to XMRV VP62, further indicating the presence of XMRV infection rather than mouse genomic DNA contamination. After we developed a sensitive cell culture assay for detection of XMRV, we assayed our cell lines and patient material with a highly sensitive assay (developed and kindly provided by Bill Switzer, CDC) to detect the presence of mouse tissue contamination by the identification of murine mitochrondial cytochrome oxidase by real time PCR. All of the cell lines and 101 patient materials tested negative for mouse contamination."

_ Tekaphor ( TALK ) 03:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No true replications yet of Lombardi et al 2009
Regarding this edit, where IP:132.185.240.120 uses the recent FDA/NIH paper to add the statement, "None of the follow up studies have attempted to fully replicate the Lombardi et al. study." This was reverted by Arthur Rubin without any explanation in the edit summary. The same edit was added to the CFS article by IP:132.185.240.120 but was then reverted by StevieNic with the edit summary "it doesn't actually say that in this source".

Yet the paper itself states: "However, in the study of Lombardi et al. (3) and studies reviewed subsequently by Silverman et al. (22) the evidence for XMRV infection in humans not only involved detection of viral nucleic acids using PCR, but also reported the detection of viral antigens, detection of anti-viral antibodies, the ability to culture the virus in a prostate cancer cell line, the detection of gamma retrovirus particles by electron microscopy, and transmission of infection to macaques. In sum, none of the four studies that have failed to confirm the PCR evidence reported by Lombardi et al. (3), nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study. " So what's the problem exactly? Alter also describes elsewhere (I don't remember the source right now) the Lombardi study as more advanced than his own. People have been saying for several months that none of the negative followup studies were true replications, but it was rejected because there was allegedly no "reliable source" for this statement, and now a landmark paper from highly respected virologists that was published in PNAS supports this statement, yet it still can't go in the article?

_ Tekaphor ( TALK ) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I missed Arthur Rubin's explanation earlier on the XMRV talkpage. I still don't see why it can't go into the article, it's important to note that the 4 negative "followup studies" which are used in the article to simply refute the original positive WPI study did not use all the same methods and avenues to detect XMRV. At most the wording may need changing, but to completely omit this pivotal point from the article is inappropriate and encourages the illusion that all these 4 negative studies have equal weight against Lombardi et al 2009. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * +1. This is a point made by Silverman, repeat by Lo et al in this latest studies conclusions and also made by other field expert commentators such as Singh and Racaniello. It is an observation about trials / experiment design not "medical information" in the context of MEDRS.  It seems entirely reasonable to make this point based on the references.  -- TerryE (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Replication, CFS, and WPI
An editor has repeatedly changed the fact that followup studies on the relationship to CFS failed to reproduce the results, to that the followup studies failed to replicate the study. No source, other than pronouncements by WPI, have been given to support that, here or in the CFS or WPI artiecles. It should not be here without a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

go on google, theres MANY sources, or failing that READ the actual papers, they are clearly not replications, the methodology and cohort classification are very different, stop playing semantics and read the papers, if they do not REPLICATE the methodology of the original study then they are not replications, if a true replication study comes up negative then that is significant, but until then its a bit like trying to make coffee with a tea bag....its quite obvious if you read the papers side by side and understand science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.177.72 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Use material from the new review that covers these issues (above), The human retrovirus XMRV in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome by Robert H. Silverman, Carvell Nguyen, Christopher J. Weight & Eric A. Klein (full text link) to replace the primary sourced construction.


 * Negative studies


 * "Three subsequent studies, two in the UK37, 44 and one in The Netherlands,45 have not reported any evidence of XMRV infection in patients with CFS. In the first of these studies, no XMRV gag sequences were detected using PCR on whole blood DNA from 186 patients with CFS, whereas the positive control—XMRV VP62 plasmid—was detected at very low levels.44 The second UK study examined samples from patients with CFS and controls using both quantitative PCR and a serology assay for neutralizing antibodies.37 The PCR assays for gag and env were performed with whole-genome amplified PBMC DNA from 48 patients with CFS; all results were negative, as were quantitative PCR assays for env among 142 CFS cases and 157 controls. Meanwhile, the neutralizing activity assay was positive in 26 of 565 samples (all but four of which also neutralized envelope proteins from other viruses), but only one positive sample was from a patient with CFS and this activity was not specific for XMRV. In the Dutch study, PCR for XMRV integrase and gag genes was performed on PBMC DNA.45 No positive results were found among 32 patients with CFS and 43 controls."


 * Differences between studies


 * "The results and key features of the above studies are summarized in Table 2. The scientific literature shows that XMRV was detected in the majority, but not all, prostate cancer studies, albeit at different rates, while XMRV was found in CFS in only one study of four published to date. The RNase L QQ association is strongly implicated in just two of the prostate cancer studies,4, 36 but not in the one CFS study in which it was examined.33 A variety of methods and human specimens were used in the different studies. The reasons for differences in the detection of XMRV in both prostate cancer and CFS between different studies are unknown but could include the following.


 * Firstly, contamination (for example, from mouse sources, human cell lines passaged in mice, or from XMRV cultured or XMRV DNA amplified in the laboratory) is an important consideration, especially when PCR is involved.47 For example, research reagents that contain mouse monoclonal antibodies, used in some preparations of Taq polymerase, should be avoided. Contamination cannot, however, account for all positive findings of XMRV in humans, which are based on multiple lines of evidence from different laboratories; not only PCR, but also FISH, IHC, serology assays and integration site mapping. Furthermore, the nucleotide sequences of XMRV are similar but not identical to any known strain of MLV, which limits the likelihood of contamination from mouse sources.48


 * Secondly, geographical differences in the distribution of XMRV are likely to account for some, but not all, of the differences in findings. For instance, the prevalence of human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1; another human retrovirus), is high in southwestern Japan (as high as 37% in small, selected populations, and up to 10% in the general population), but low in neighboring areas of Korea, China, and eastern Russia.49 By contrast, the prevalence of HTLV-1 in French blood donors is only 0.0039%.50 However, geographical variation cannot explain all differences in XMRV prevalence between studies. For example, it cannot explain why studies within the USA have had such different results.4, 7, 30


 * Thirdly, sequence variations in XMRV, or XMRV-like viruses, could explain why some studies fail to detect XMRV. While the XMRV strains that have been reported to date are more than 99% identical, the existence of divergent or related viruses is possible and these could easily be missed by many of the methods, in particular PCR, used to search for XMRV.


 * Fourthly, in the CFS studies, clinical criteria for patient selection varied (Oxford, CDC or Canadian criteria) between the different studies, which might have contributed to the different findings of XMRV. However, additional patient data, such as virological-like symptoms, might help to explain the presence or absence of XMRV in different CFS cases. While diagnosis of prostate cancer involves well-established and widely accepted laboratory methods, this is not the case for CFS, which is diagnosed based on clinical symptoms and by exclusion of other disorders.


 * Finally, the absence of standardized, highly sensitive methods of detection coupled with a lack of widely available, positive control human samples is likely to contribute to the different results obtained between studies. One limitation of the currently available methods, such as antibody neutralization assays,37 is that they are not completely selective for XMRV. PCR, while highly sensitive, is particularly susceptible to contamination and might not detect sequence variants of XMRV. Development of ideal tools for detection of XMRV infections will require combination of high-throughput, automated methods for detecting XMRV RNA or DNA, proteins and crossreacting antibodies. As none of the negative reports published to date included samples from known XMRV-infected individuals, technical differences cannot be ruled out as a reason for the failure to detect XMRV. Technical differences could also lead to false positive results, as in the case of crossreacting antibodies in neutralization assays.37" Ward20 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the text itself which I haven't had a chance to look at in detail, but the reason I reverted the edit from this user was due to the downright lies (saying you're a different person when you clearly are not), personal attacks and general nastiness in his edit summaries. If he wants to contribute, I would recommend he [1] gets a username and [2] stops the nastiness and [3] works with other editors. Bottom line is that hurling lies and abuse will get you absolutely nowhere on wikipedia, but if you make an effort to be civil and work with other editors then you will have a much better chance of getting your edits into the article. It's up to you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This review by Silverman et al is to my knowledge the first comprehensive secondary MEDRS review of the XMRV papers, and moreover by one of the discoverers of the virus itself and therefore clearly a leading field expert. I therefore believe that we should regard this with some weight and use its wording to influence any comparisons or relative interpretation of the various primary papers.  Perhaps to avoid unnecessary reversions in the page itself, we should debate appropriate wording here.  TerryE (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lo et al. has now confirmed that the other studies and their own were not replication studies. This should now be added to the page. "In sum, none of the four studies that have failed to confirmthe PCRevidence reported by Lombardi et al. (3), nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.full.pdf


 * That's still inappropriate. Even if your definition of a "replication" is what is used in the real world, what would need to be said is that multiple studies, using different methodologies, have failed to confirm the correlation association.  It is not appropriate to note that the studies were or were not attempts at "replication", unless (which I doubt) that is the usual way that scientists try to confirm studies.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I direct you to wikipedia's own page on replication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_(scientific_method) "Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently." and a link on that page http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/10/5744.ars "The importance of reproducibility was not questioned, with responses tending to mirror one developmental biologist who noted, "It goes without saying that reproducibility is the cornerstone of research."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.212.223 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The importance of proper replication should have been a poster presentation at the 1st international XMRV conference! - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New XMRV paper in PNAS
There is a new paper in PNAS that may confirm the original Mikovits paper. And a news article in Science (27 Aug) has some good commentary. Unfortunately, the commentary is not for free. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The new PNAS study has already been added. I think the full-text Science article might be available free on the internet if you google it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting explanation of removal of FDA-NIH joint study under the highly regarded Harvey J. Alter, published in the equally highly regarded Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The full study is available online here ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract ). It has a significant bearing on the opening paragraph which currently leads readers to believe there is no concrete evidence for a linkage between CFS patients and XMRV and/or MLV related viruses.

If the issue were simply the use of "validating," why not edit accordingly, while retaining the citation and associated results summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong editor bias on this page. Get used to it. HealthandScience (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why it was entirely removed, but I think the basic issue was, as you've obviously seen, that the second study didn't "validate" the first per se, since they didn't find the same virus, but rather, several that were closely-related to the first. That's certainly highly suggestive that the entire family may be the root cause, but it still needs to be studied why the original virus wasn't found in this study and why the other studies failed to find it at all (though certainly, several plausible reasons have been mentioned). I agree that the complete removal gave inappropriate weight to the studies that failed to find the virus, though. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is a concerning trend here to simply remove/revert information rather than rework it. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it was just lack of time. I noticed Arthur's revert and I was thinking of reworking it, but didn't have the time to figure out how to rewrite it. HealthandScience did a pretty good job. Please assume good faith! --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous IP's and new accounts who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's massive hierarchy of semi-arbitrarily applied rules, are often met with poorly explained instant reverts and even contempt when they attempt to edit the ME/CFS articles. Irrespective of whether these edits are valid or need work, I'm not surprised at all that regular Wikipedians are perceived as cantankerous. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a thorough treatment of the Alter study and updated the CFS section accordingly. Please review and make edits. I made quite a few changes, some of which undoubtedly need modifications. HealthandScience (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I made an adjustment to 3 sentences to help clarify. I nearly added the following sentence as well but thought that it may be too much detail: "All 4 patients who provided two samples 2 years apart had tested positive on both occasions." - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

German study, healthy vs immunocompromised
I noticed that "the German study" (healthy vs immunocompromised) was removed, so I attempted a rework. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Should it be added to the main text? Currently it is only in the lede. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it read well in the lead para, but I also support sw's point.  If a point merits inclusion in the lead, then it should also be covered in further detail in the appropriate section of the body of the article.  -- TerryE (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the opening text necessarily raises the issue of conflicting studies, the German study does seem to have relevance. I agree, if it's mentioned in the opening, it should be covered below.  Frankly, the FDA/NIH study also needs a much more thorough treatment in the body.  Alter is a powerhouse in the field, and now he's appointed a world class virologist Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to move forward with it.  At some point the newest and most relevant research topics (viral genealogy and disease etiology) will necessarily need to become the focus of the opening discussion. Science evolves, sometimes even rapidly. HealthandScience (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But the German study doesn't seem to have anything to do with the conflicting results - it is looking at something completely different. The lede should be a summary of the main article, so if you think it is important the German study should probably go in the main text instead of or as well as the lede. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The German study does indeed have something to do with the conflicting results, as it detected XMRV in 2-3% of healthy controls whereas all the "negative" CFS studies couldn't find XMRV in a single person whatsoever. The German study tested "respiratory secretions" while the other studies used blood (or components of it). I agree that it should go in the main text somewhere and I didn't get around to that when readding it, but its current absence from the main text was not a valid reason for removing it. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with both points (it's relevant to the opening, and needs to go in the main text). I will work on creating a thorough treatment of the FDA/NIH study in the main text, if you can work on something for the German study. HealthandScience (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, I hope this will do as a start. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I just posted a thorough treatment of the Alter study and updated the CFS section accordingly.  Please review and make edits.  I made quite a few changes, some of which undoubtedly need modifications. HealthandScience (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good start yourself, I left a comment in the above section. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentary: "chaos"
More commentary in this last week's issue of Science on XMRV following a recent workshop. One organizer characterized the field as a "zone of chaos". And: "We don't have agreement on almost anything." A clear warning for the editors here to tread very carefully, as no view can be presumed to be correct. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New studies
these might need to be added to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I just added a few more studies to the article. The Boston study - which I added to the end of the lede - may need to be added to the main text as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

XMRV and CFS
The following is from a patent filed on a CFS-associated retrovirus, which can be found here- http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1992005760

It states the following- what the patent authors refer to as CAV(Chronic Fatigue Immunodeficiency Syndrome-associated virus) "may be morphologically characterized as a retrovirus, particularly a non-C retrovirus which is capable of infecting humans."

XMRV is in fact a type-C retrovirus, so using the above as a reference to the statement 'previous associations of retroviruses in CFS not being replicated' is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This was discussed previously (see "reversions" section, above). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a 1992 patent, so it is pre-XMRV. David spector (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

prove the controversy lies solely with WPI or remove the controvery link that links directly to the WPI page....the thinly vielied bias on this page is shocking, certain users hold far too much sway on here.... -- 15:41, 8 July 2010 86.169.36.163


 * If you actaully click on the link you will see that it does not link directly to the WPI page. Instead it links to a SECTION WITHIN the WPI page that discusses the controversy. That is just where that info was put. I don't have any objection to moving it elsewhere. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lolllll sciencewatcher your reputation precedes you and you are known for these sort of tactics, you just your self said it links to the WPI page, yes its a section in the WPI page but its still THE WPI PAGE...its is clear a number of people on here throw out wikipedia policies when they want to push their POV, it is FACT undeniable FACT that there were THREE labs that did the original study so linking to just the WPI page is bias, this should be clear to anyone with a brain -- 22:29, 8 July 2010 86.169.36.163


 * As I said it doesn't bother me if you want to move that section somewhere else. It wasn't me who put it there and I have no emotional attachment to it being there. If you feel it should be moved elsewhere, please discuss at the WPI talkpage. And I would also suggest you calm down and get a username so that people will take you seriously. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lolllll sciencewatcher telling people to calm down, people will calm down when you stop running the CFS/ME pages like your own private playground, currently the XMRV page suggests that any "controversy" about xmrv lies solely with the WPI which is just a load of trash, if any controversy exists it is about how the virus might cause disease or not, not with the WPI especially becuase there were 3 labs that were on the WPI study and the WPI never claimed to discover XMRV, this is an XMRV page so stop triyn gto use it to slander WPI, remove the link and then we can remove the slander on the WPI page too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.12 (talk • contribs) 11:54, July 9, 2010


 * Sciencewatcher please read the following guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_a_fanatic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.12 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a guideline, it's an essay, and I don't see any reason why he should be ashamed of keeping correct, sourced, information linked from the appropriate section of the XMRV page. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (reformatted to add indents and missing ~ stamps) @IP 86, if you care to review the talk page archives, then you will see that the decision to use of the WPI article to hold the discussion on the various controversies around XMRV and CFS was a consensus decision after some debate.  IIRC, the main reasons for this were (i) to keep the XMRV content focussed on MEDRS, and (ii) it was the original WPI-led paper that proposed the possible association and trigger the follow-up research.  Inferring that another editor is a fanatic for supporting a consensus agreement is an argument that totally escapes me.  If you want to suggest an alternative approach, why not try propose a reasoned alternative and win the debate in the talk pages by reasoned argument? TerryE (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * any debate on the XMRV, WPI or CFS pages are impossible because there is a little gang of editors that run the pages as if they were their own, if you look on all the pages you will see the same editors cropping up again and again, all patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other and reaching their own "consensus" based on whatever it is they want to change, there is about 3 main players and they can easily draft in the odd other one to "agree" when needed, I have seen it happen over and over again, they have been playing this game for about 4 years now and is impossible for new people to get edits in, becuase they will blitzkreig them with by out numbering them and using convoluted arguements arguing right to the bitter end, and twisting wikipedia policy to its limit, THAT is why anything on wikipedia to do with CFS, XMRV and WPI or fibromyalgia are so negatively biased and extremely bad wikipedia pages, it really is sickening when you think about it becuase its totally against the ethos of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.177.189 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 July 2010
 * What you're suggesting would be a violation of policy, and if you believe you have a valid concern you should take it up at WP:AN/I; if you don't, then please refrain from making baseless accusations. You've been informed that the status quo represents consensus, and if you'd like to change it then you should make an alternative proposal and build consensus.  Attacking all who disagree with you won't help build consensus.  -- Scray (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohh there is more than enough evidence its just most people "the average man on the street" has no idea how to navigate the mind boggling array of wiki policy, I beleive the editors in question would have been reported ages ago had the process been easier to understand, in fact a few google searchs and a look in the archives throws up continuous complaints about certain editors but I guess most people dont know how to make an official complaint, would you be able to enlighten me a little more of the process please, and thanks for the link

also I just did a search on the admin page you just pointed me towards and one of the editors in question who has been running riot for years has over 10 complaints written about them on the admin boards, like I said there are certain editors who have a little cabal and who have been known about for years who somehow have a monopoly over certain pages all on similar subjects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.38.66 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 July 2010
 * There are tools at your disposal for dispute resolution - that pages summarizes better than I could. Note that complaints about a user do not represent evidence that they are problematic - it simply means that they part of a controversy.  The same observation could be made of peace officers - they're often present when there is trouble.  So, if you see someone's ID popping up at WP:AN/I, do you also see consensus that they violated WP policy/guidance?  If they do not, then that's not the evidence you seek.  -- Scray (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are the three positive XMRV studies by IrsiCaixa in Spain not included? Also, although I realize it hasn't been long, the information about the XMRV conference ought to be included. At least that it happened. ~K~ (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search and didn't find these studies anywhere. Note that any studies need to have been published in a reliable peer-reviewed journal to be added to the article (see WP:MEDRS). --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

oh great that means we can remove the studies that were published in PlosOne217.39.36.173 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How come? Isn't it a reliable peer-reviewed journal? --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will chip in here, no plosOne isnt a reliable peer review journal, the criteria to publish in plosOne is VERY VERY slack, i.e its SUPER easy to get published in it, its practically guranteed86.133.108.6 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)