Talk:Xenotropic murine leukemia virus–related virus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources

Use Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to beef up the article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

There are quite a few more Google scholar hits for Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus than for Xenotropic MuLV-related virus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am curious too about the name. It appears that virus-related virus is a bit of an alliteration. It would seem more descriptive to call it Xenotropic murine leukemia retro-virus (XMRV or XMLRV)...
  

Enquire (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

XMRV is a descriptive name. Xenotropic- crossing over from some other species, but mutating sufficiently to make it unable to reinfect the source species. Murine Leukemia Virus- the parent virus in the clade is a virus responsible for leukemia in mice. Related Virus- means that it came from the mouse leukemia virus, but is not it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclark77 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the "virus-related virus" is an artifact of the virus' discovery by non-virologists. For mammals, 95% identity would certainly mean different species. For retroviruses, 95% identity is a strong indication that two putatively different viruses are in fact "it anymore". HIV-1 and HIV-2 are closely-related retroviruses that evolved from different strains of simian immunodeficiency virus and are commonly conflated into "HIV" (for example, in this New York Times op-ed). Their genomes are only about 40% identical. Sequences of viruses within the M clade of HIV-1 can differ by as much as 50% from sequences of viruses within other clades of HIV-1, and sometimes by 10-15% from other viruses within the same clade (reviewed here). Yet these myriad strains with greater genetic differences than XMRV vs MuLV are not dubbed novel retroviruses and called "HIV-1 M-related virus", "HIV-1 M-related virus-related virus" and such. But bad name or no, XMRV is what the literature currently uses, so we use it here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is currently named that, as it is not currently known if it can cause leukemia anymore. It certainly appears that cancer causation is one of the features of this virus, but it is not certain that can specifically cause leukemia, although it is quite possible; perhaps an innocent until proven guilty biological scenario, if you will. In any case, I suspect the discoverer of this virus wants to wait until more is know about this virus before entering a more appropriate name. As far as genetic similarities go in the naming this a "new" virus, I think genomic similarities notwithstanding, the fact that it has developed new adaptations is enough for taxonomic differentiation from the parent virus.Jclark77 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Familial disposition

The article does not yet mention that there can be a familial (genetic) disposition for being infected with XMRV. This needs to be verified before being added. David spector (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia?

Please add the studies also linking this to Fibromyalgia. This is just as important, and is also being linked to this virus. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.176.55 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not finding any studies linking Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus to fibromyalgia, just speculation. I am as sure as you are that such a connection will be found, to this or perhaps another virus, but without a cure or treatment, it will be years before anybody is actually helped. So we can wait a few days, weeks or even months until a proper source comes along.
  

Abductive (reasoning) 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• The news wires are flooded with this story, see (for example):

• US National Cancer Institute
• Overview by the Whittemore Peterson Institute who did part of the research

You should understand that this syndrome is still poorly understood and is variously described by many names including: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) [more commonly used in North America] also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Encephalitis/Encephalopathy (ME) [more commonly used in Europe]; as well as Fibromyalgia (FM or FMS). You should note that in the overview (second link) they clearly state that their test sample of patients included: ME/CFS, Fibromylagia, and Atypical MS patients.

The symptoms are overlapping and there is much debate as to whether these are all manifestations of a common disorder or (more likely) that these are a collection of different conditions which all manifest with similar symptoms. There is, so far, no diagnostic test for either CFS/ME or FMS and both are essentially a diagnosis of exclusion (in other words, there is no other known cause). The primary difference between the diagnosis of CFS/ME and FMS is that in FMS there is chronic widespread pain. In most other respects the symptoms are similar. The therapies (such as they are now) are basically the same for CFS/ME and FMS.

Enquire (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure if you are advocating adding fibromyalgia to the article or not. The second source you provide does mention the conditions together, but didn't the published study use only CFS patients? Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the sample size of fibromyalgia patients was too small to be conclusive. I'll be acquiring the paper soon so will return with numbers. Brandon.irwin (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently identified?

Can we please specify the year it was identified? 1981 along with HTLV? - RoyBoy 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent information to have in the article. The article could probably use a lot of expanding. Is there a good Medline source? Ward20 (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was reported in 2006 in PLoS Pathogen. The Silverman source (2nd ref as of now) is a review by the scientist who cloned RNase L and played quite the role in first identifying XMRV. The review is very readable and includes a solid section on XMRV. If anyone doesn't have access, feel free to email me.

I agree completely on the expansion, by the way, and I've tried to help out. Unfortunately, there aren't many sources. Yet...I have a feeling that's going to change in a big way.

Another suggestion: with all of the media attention, it would be fair to include some of that coverage. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible stronger relation to CFS to watch for?

After the publication to the Science reference, the researchers released the following in a press release dated 08-Oct-2009,

""Since the original Science paper was submitted, we have continued to refine our test for XMRV and have surprisingly found that 95 percent ME/CFS samples tested positive for XMRV antibodies in the plasma. This finding clearly points to the retrovirus as a significant contributing factor in this illness," said Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., director of research for WPI and leader of the team that discovered this association."

Need to find a better reference for this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon.irwin (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This info should be included, with clarification that the 95% (actually "nearly 98%" see just added ref in section) is based upon additional analysis which has, however, not yet been published. --Harel (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS - this info cannot be included. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, reading WP:MEDRS, how does a quote from the team leader for the research not count as a primary source? I see that the guideline claims states that press releases shouldn't be trusted, but this is from the organization that published the research with a clear quote that could not have been taken out of context. What if I could get a statement from the researcher, or if they could edit this page? Or, must we wait for an amendment in Science? Brandon.irwin (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or equivalent to be reliable for MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:MEDRS is that if we use a direct quote from Doctors Mikovits and/or Peterson [1][2] or it should be considered a primary source, or annotate that it is recent, unpublished research, accepted by an expert body as testimony. Additionally, I propose that a section about XMRV in the news should be included, not for making any assumptions about its correctness, but for Wikipedia:recentism and historical perspectives.

--Jclark77 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been no further responses, I am going to assume there is no objection. I will reference the CDC CFSAC meeting video[3] with the current data presented there. I know this is a bit unconventional, and should be replaced, or reinforced when other sources become available.Jclark77 (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements by researchers, on youtube or elsewhere, are not reliable per MEDRS. Because of the novelty of XMRV research, one could argue for the judicious use of primary sources here, but videotaped meetings and youtube clips are unacceptable as sources for this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why it should be considered unreliable. First, it is more suitably documented than a lot of other primary sources; I don't know about you, but in all thesis defenses and seminars I have been to, I have learned a lot more about a subject beyond just reading a paper which, by it very nature, is less interactive than a person presenting research, as questions and resultant clarifications make it infinitely more valuable. Obviously, you are not of this mindset, so I feel a request for comment is in order. I will do that, and while results are coming in, I will see if I can find the original research in the CDC submitted documents. However, I think it is important that we address this issue, as I feel that WP:Bold and MEDRS support this type of inclusion of an obviously fledgling subject matter where secondary sources are essentially nil. That being said, I am all for scrutiny of primary sources, especially in these early times of research, but you should keep in mind, we are not watching some everyperson spewing unsubstantiated rhetoric for the masses to ingest; we are talking about a recognized expert in the field presenting findings to an expert panel, and backing up the research with an included secondary study that was presented in arguably the most illustrious peer-reviewed journal out there. The fact alone that it was published in Science is essentially saying that it was peer-reviewed before it was published. Additionally, if it is not obvious that this is a credible, primary source, WP:IAR has obvious implications here. Nobody here is trying to spread a hoax or poorly documented conjecture, this information obviously carries a lot of weight both in the medical field at large, and in the mainstream media.

Beyond this, I think with the volatility of this current subject matter, we should seek out the help of members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses in expanding this article and the judicious examination of sourced materials. Being fairly new here in the virus community, and long-time DNFTT, I am open to suggestions about how to elicit responses from these, the best that Wikipedia has to offer.Jclark77 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make a couple of points. First, Reeves from the CDC has said that he doesn't know why Science published the study considering the serious flaws in it. Second, previous XMRV research into prostate cancer link with XMRV appears to have been disproved, as already discussed in this article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to your mention of Reeves, I would contend that the anecdotal nature of Dr. Reeves response should by no means constitute an invalidation of the WPI study. In science, there is a proper way to invalidate a hypothesis, and that is to follow the exacting measures prescribed in a study and not get the same results. Obviously, this has not been done by Dr. Reeves or anyone else. Additionally, there is more than enough healthy skepticism of Dr. Reeves methodology to warrant questioning his objectivity and perhaps his motives for attempting to squash this thing out the gate. Arguably, this may be the mindset that killed the Defreitas research, but that is speculation at this point. In regards to your second point, I do not see the correlation between the pathogenesis of a related, but not the same, XMRV in cancer studies and the XMRV that is the subject matter of this, the CFS-related XMRV discovery. In the above statement you embraced the following Fallacies: Converse accident just because one study failed does not mean that all studies will fail; Ignoratio elenchi subset:argumentum ad verecundiam you hung your argument on authority, not proof; and Affirming the Consequent just because one study failed doesn't mean the following studies will fail. Jclark77 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it is anecdotal, I think that this is highly telling.[4] Should be interesting to follow. Jclark77 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, a reliable source for a science-related article is a peer-reviewed publication, preferably a review. A comment by a researcher, one hour and 25 minutes into a video on the internet, is not a reliable source. Nor is a blog. In my opinion, such sources fail RS for any article, and absolutely for WP:MED articles.

I also disagree with Jclark77's assertion, above, that "MEDRS support this type of inclusion of an obviously fledgling subject matter where secondary sources are essentially nil". Furthermore, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTE would indicate that if secondary sources are lacking, there's little justification for a stand-alone article. Perhaps we can relax that a bit here given the recent media coverage flurry, although our coverage must be re-evaluated as the story develops. But no, that doesn't mean we have a licence to use speculation and low-quality sources.

Finally, the Science article is not, as Jclark77 states, "an included secondary study". The Science report is a primary source. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JClark seems to think it's ok for us to put in some info from a youtube video and/or a press release from WPI, but it's not ok to put in a comment from Reeves that is published in Science. Reeves is a more reliable researcher than Peterson, and Science is more reliable than youtube or WPI's website, so if anything was going in it would be Reeve's comments. However none of this passes MEDRS.

One thing it might be worth putting in is that the CDC is going to try to replicate the findings. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)--sciencewatcher (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agreed Sciencewatcher. While ideally I agree with you Keepcalm, there is precedence for including primary sources in new subject matter. I wish you would call the video what it is, official testimony before an expert body. Because something is posted on youtube, does not make it a youtube video, as you would like to say. I am curious why you would not call it a CFSAC video, when that would obviously be more appropriate. Additionally, I was not suggesting that the blog was appropriate content, I think I made that abundantly clear. what I was referring to about the secondary study what was Dr. Peterson said in the presentation that the Cleveland Clinic did a validation study at the same time, not that it was included in the Science article.

I think we should step back and ask ourselves a series of questions and make a few observations before including content in this article. Obviously, we all have differing opinions about the subject matter, but we should not let that interrupt WP:NPOV. So, from a neutral point of view, what constitutes a legitimate primary source? Obviously, there is such a thing, per Wikipedia policy. To answer this question, we must meet the following qualifiers... as an encyclopedia, the articles should reflect current knowledge. Does the article, at this point, reflect that? I think, at this very moment, the article is out of date. I reach this conclusion because I ask myself the following questions. 1. If I saw XMRV in then news right now, and wanted to find out more, would I find current, up to date knowledge in this article? Obviously, the answer is no; it is the very reason I am here working on this article. 2. What should be done to make this article reflect the current understanding of this matter? I think, to start, we should find a way to address this that everyone can get behind. As knowledge of this matter is fluid, so should the documentation of it be. I think the analogy of the a blade of grass bends in response to a strong wind, while the tree trunk snaps is apt here. Perhaps, until we know more, a section, XMRV in the media, is appropriate. Granted, this will be hard, but I think that is why it must be done, as right now I think the article reflects the mindset that we should never let the truth get in the way of the rules. Jclark77 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Answers to Jclark77's series of questions may be found in WP:MEDRS. Primary sources are usually not good sources for science articles, although some peer-reviewed primary sources may be used judiciously. Comments from a video, on youtube or elsewhere, do not satisfy peer review. That's not a conspiracy to silence anyone's opinions about XMRV or any other subject; it's simply how Wikipedia rolls.

Our task is not to seek out and reveal a hidden, concealed or suppressed "truth". Rather, we strive for reliability and verifiability. For articles in the scope of WP:MED, the criteria for reliability and verifiability are even more strictly codified: peer reviewed, expert analysis of primary sources (secondary sources). Most primary sources, especially those that have not undergone peer review, are unreliable sources for articles on scientific subjects. Jclark77 and others who disagree with this basic, long-standing policy are welcome to propose changes at WP:MED or WP:MEDRS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As a sufferer of chronic fatigue of unkown etiology I would very much like to know "the truth" concerning any possible cause of CFS. However, as a long-time WP editor I must agree completely with Keepcalmandcarryon. Readers of WP expect mention of news in science, so WP must at least hint at current events. However, WP is primarily an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. WP should reflect information that is accepted in our culture, and in the case of science, by clear consensus of scientific opinion. This requires the passage of time, since experimentation, peer-reviewing, publishing, and other consensus mechanisms take time to arrive at "the truth", and even then there is rarely a guarantee that enduring truth has indeed been found. Note how the English followup study found no evidence of XMRV at all, in spite of using a sensitive test. More studies are clearly indicated to resolve this contradiction; the status of a scientific theory is often unknown. Hopeful people might like to believe that a first announcement of startling news is the truth, but hoping does not make it so nor does hoping reflect a scientific viewpoint. The WP policies, obnoxious as they sometimes seem, actually work well in practice. Patience is difficult but necessary to evaluate hypotheses, no matter how promising or important. David spector (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversions

User:Lapabc added information from several sources about previous reports of retrovirus associations, which I edited slightly. These edits have been reverted without explanation.

I'm not completely opposed to removing the text on previous retrovirus claims, as it has no direct bearing on XMRV. However, it does add useful context, and in that sense could remain. Regardless, the transmission routes added by Lapabc are verifiably reported in the Science paper. Please, let's discuss whether Lapabc's edits should be removed before wholesale reversion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The text, "A 1991 claim of retroviral associations with CFS was subsequently rejected." is peripheral to the XMRV virus article at this time and probably should be removed. The 1991 study PMID 672770 found Retroviral sequences related to human T-lymphotropic virus type II in patients with CFS. I do believe this topic should be included in the Chronic fatigue syndrome article (it may already be I'm not sure). I agree that viral transmission should be included and also expanded to state these were cell culture experiments in vitro. FYI I was able to go toThe Whittemore Peterson Institute and click on the link that says "View Reprint" and access the full text. I can't consistently use the direct url address to access the text. Ward20 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed DeFreitas doesn't belong. Added in vitro transmission. Sam Weller (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The in vitro transmission report is present already, under "transmission". Upon further reflection, I feel Lapabc's addition of DeFreitas should remain, as it provides important context in which to evaluate the current claims of viral association. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point, thank you.... (and you're right that 1991 was not 18 yr before 2006... it was getting pretty late). Lapabc (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I dissent from this logic. The casual reader will interpret the sentence "A previous claim in 1991 of retroviral associations with CFS was rejected in 1994." as invalidating the findings of the 2009 Science paper. This wiki article is about XMRV (as was this paper), which is a Gammaretrovirus. This study looked for XMRV DNA sequences in the patents and controls. Yes, a different research team found that a group of CFS tested antibody-positive for a Delaretrovirus in 1991, but this was not confirmed by a follow-up study in 1994. Wrong virus and a completely different test, and therefore totally irrelevant to this article. I will wait a couple of days for any counter argument, then by default remove this sentence. If this debate belongs anywhere, this is in the CFS article. TerryE (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling uncomfortable about some of the recent changes. I would ask authors who have no account (are identified by IP address only) consider WP guidelines before making edits and Undos. I undid the ridiculous link added to the word "Murine" (mouse). Mice have nothing directly to do with XMRV. David spector (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just the nature of wikipedia. The same ridiculous changes get made to virtually all articles! --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to TerryE, above: strictly speaking, per WP:RECENTISM and several other policies, we should not be making any reports about science on Wikipedia that are based only on recent, primary sources, such as those describing a link between XMRV and diseases. Given the publicity associated with the XMRV/CFS/prostate cancer claims, though, it's probably appropriate to apply the policy relatively loosely here. This means that we must be careful to present the primary research in proper context. For CFS, that context is a history of unconfirmed claims about viral associations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address the discussions above by adding a bit more material detail and substituting a review instead of two primary studies. Ward20 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like you did a pretty good job. As it reads now, it presents XMRV and CFS as preliminary, provides the historical context of virus associations, and doesn't present it as being necessarily causal. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that the edits have improved the article. However, I am still uncomfortable about this last sentence clause: "but many other CFS studies did not replicate their findings or find evidence of infection with human retroviruses." (1) You are still referencing papers in 1990/1993 in the context of a virus that was only identified in 2006. (2) The qualification "many" is not supported by the reference. (3) The 1993 analysis referenced studies which investigated viruses from the deltaretrovirus and spumavirus genera, because these were the only retrovirus genera known to infect humans at that time. They didn't look at the gammaretroviruses, the genus of XMRV. So whilst this last sentence is factually correct, it is also misleading, IMHO. My previous comment "wrong virus(es), wrong test" still applies. Why not "However, a 1993 analysis reported that related CFS studies failed to find evidence of infection with the then known human retroviruses." — TerryE (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sciencewatcher, your last edit reads well: it raises the caution and provides the reference, without undue over-emphasis. I don't know who 74.51.82.241 is. (I really don't understand why Wikipedia policy permits anonymous editing.) — TerryE (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TerryE. The mention of the '93 work by Defreitas et al. is totally irrelevant given this is an article about XMRV, not an article about CFS. The Science paper should be judged on its own merits, not the merits of someone else's work working on a completely different virus some 15 odd years ago. No one is claiming causality yet. All there is at present is an association. I'm going to remove the reference and please do not reverse it until you have justified why you are including a reference to a totally different virus in an article on XMRV.Dangermouse72 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TerryE agreed with my edit, so if you agree with him you should revert it back to my version. In response to your comments about it being irrelevant, please see Keepcalmandcarryon's comments above. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As it reads now, it's easy to read over "other types" and therefore relegate it to including all retroviruses. Perhaps we could solve the debate with a simple rephrasing that makes the distinction a little more clear. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that a gammaretrovirus is distinct from deltaretrovirus in some very important ways, meaning that the previous research may be perfectly valid or may be utterly inapplicable. I'm thinking of something like this:

Previous reports of retroviruses in CFS patients were not replicated in follow-up studies, however these studies examined a different subfamily genus of retrovirus than XMRV.

That really isn't saying anything too different, but it's making the distinction more clear. In fact, it might be going too far in the opposite direction and implicitly dismissing previous studies, so I'd invite changes to it if people think it's warranted. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RobinHood, it is certainly a better wording (less dismissive of the current work), but it should properly be stated: "A previous report 18 years ago of an unrelated retrovirus in CFS was not replicated in follow-up studies", since we are talking about 1 report not several as the quote above implies. Even then I don't see how it is relevant on the XMRV page. Previous work in CFS by different authors would be relevant on the CFS page. Unless you can show that Defreitas et al. discovered XMRV, or somehow directly relate that work to XMRV, I don't see how it belongs here. The fact that both works deal with retroviruses in CFS is interesting, but this can be mentioned on the CFS page where it properly belongs.Dangermouse72 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dangermouse72 may have a point about the relevance here. Out of curiosity, I just quickly grabbed two viruses from different genera of the same family of viruses. So let's re-examine the CFS section in that light, pretending that these viruses were the ones being studied (with appropriate common symptoms substituted for the name CFS) instead of a gammaretrovirus vs. a deltaretrovirus:

A study published in Science in 2009 reported that the common cold was found in the blood of 67% of patients with fever, headache, and a sore throat but in only 4% of healthy controls, with the study authors suggesting that the virus may cause these symptoms or be a passenger co-infection. Previous reports of Picornaviridae viruses in these patients were not replicated in follow-up studies, however these studies examined people with poliovirus.

Okay, so looking at it that way, we would now have a 15-year-old study of people with the same symptoms where one was looking for the common cold and the other was looking for polio. I can see where the relevance of a study about polio in an article about the common cold leaves a little something to be desired. About the only flaw in my above quick analysis is that I was using two viruses from different genera of the same family instead of subfamily. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's just just 'one previous study', it is 2. If you read the reference, it looks at both HTLV-II-like viruses and spumaviruses, which had been implicated in CFS. In both cases the findings could not be replicated. But if you think it is too unrelated perhaps we could just put in the comments of the 3 scientists quoted in Science, 2 negative and one positive. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Question, I don't know which 3 scientists in Science are being refered to. Is there a link? "I know only of the Coffin Science Commentary: http://www.cfids-cab.org/MESA/Coffin.pdf. Thanks Ward20 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The other 2 were Reeves and a person who originally discovered XMRV. All 3 are in Science on the web, but I can't seem to find them right now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be instructive to consider the question: at what point, and in what context, would it have been appropriate for Wikipedia to report on the proposed association of HIV (at the time, LAV or HTLV-III) with AIDS...given the historical unfolding of the HIV/AIDS story? In 1983, when Luc Montagnier published a description of LAV, isolated from an AIDS patient? (Against inclusion, this was a single primary study, and in essence a case report; for inclusion, it was the very first association of a retrovirus with the syndrome.) In April 1984, when Margaret Heckler of the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States announced that Robert Gallo and colleagues had discovered HTLV-III as the cause of AIDS? (Against inclusion, this was a press conference; for inclusion, a government agency was announcing the results of four peer-reviewed papers slated for release in Science the following week.) In May 1984, when Gallo's first four papers were published? Or several months later, with publication of the first scientific reviews on HIV and AIDS?

Now consider a fictional history in which Montagnier's and Gallo's findings were not replicated; in which 25 years of subsequent research on AIDS produced many hypotheses but little consensus on aetiology or treatment; and in which, in 2009, a single primary study reported an association of another retrovirus with AIDS. I would argue that such a finding would not merit specific treatment in our article on AIDS until replicated and reviewed. It could perhaps find a place in an article on the retrovirus itself, but should be placed in the historical context of unreplicated studies on such viruses and AIDS.

Until the findings in the XMRV/CFS Science paper are replicated and reviewed, this article should maintain a description of the historical context of unconfirmed CFS/virus associations and perhaps, as sciencewatcher suggests, a treatment of the differing viewpoints of scientists as reported in Science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full-text Science article giving views of a number of scientists (only the abstract is viewable on Science's website), and here is a NY Times article giving views of Reeves. Notice that while CFS patients have blasted Reeves for his comments, DeRisi (the co-discoverer of XMRV) says exactly the same thing - study flawed due to no demographics - so that is probably something that should be mentioned at the very least. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DeRisi says no such thing. The article linked to says: [DeRisi] "was not satisfied with details in the paper: He wanted to know more about the viral load in CFS patients and how the demographics of the control group matched that of CFS patients." He does not say the study is "flawed". If you are going to start posting negative comments about the article, then you should also post supporting comments, e.g. from Dr Coffin, Dr Kerr etc. Pretty soon we'll end up with a whole article on the Science paper and not on XMRV.Dangermouse72 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KCACO that this is clearly preliminary work (even the Whittemore-Patterson Institute said so at some point, as I recall) and it needs to be presented as such. I'm just not sure that comparing it to the specific previous virus research on its own is meaningful, as it leads to debates like this one. :) It might be more beneficial to present it along the lines of "There has been much prior research into CFS, including virus and retrovirus associations, and so far nothing conclusive has ever been determined. This study should be considered in that light." Obviously the wording should be a little better than that, but my point is that the article needs to present the fact that this could well be the breakthrough that all of us CFS patients are hoping it is, but it could just as easily be yet another false start. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Dangermouse: the word 'flawed' was just my one-word summary of what Reeves and DeRisi said. I'm not proposing we use that phrasing in the article. Reeves says he's surprised that Science published the paper, which in my mind means 'flawed'. And yes, we can certainly put the positive comments in as well as the negative ones. I think we should distill it all down to one sentence, something along the lines of "While some scientists have praised the research others are not satisfied with certain details of the paper, such as the lack of demographics of patients and controls." along with the 2 refs. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus supports the inclusion of context and caveats, although the exact wording may be further discussed. I have made an assay at it, adding the two Science refs and attempting to summarise positive and negative briefly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the wording slightly off the mark from the sources and subject to a back and forth he said she said type argument about the study. So I edited the material to what I believe is the most important topic, the preliminary nature of the study until the results are independently replicated. I put the previous retrovirus studies in context as far as number and time. Ward20 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 the comments were added after the Science article to provide context (which they do). Mentioning the failed work by completely different authors on a completely different retrovirus, carried out some 18 years ago is biasing the reader to expect failure in replication on XMRV, where as the article should be neutral on that issue. Also this is an article on XMRV (and it's potential link to various disease states), not an article on the history of CFS.Dangermouse72 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree the last sentence was somewhat irrelevant and biasing to this article. I put added the time line to see if there would be a reaction on the issue. I am not concerned too much whether the last sentence stays or goes because it probably will be replaced shortly with several new studies that both will and won't replicate the XMRV link. Ward20 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted Ward20's edit. Looks like my edit summary got messed up. Anyway, the problem was that Ward20's edit summary completely misrepresented DeRisi and Reeve's comments. They ARE questioning the rigour of the study. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Reeves' comment is in a news article not referenced. I agree with Dangermouse72's 22:08, 12 December 2009 post above that there are both positives and negatives stated about the study, and the present material is somewhat biased. That DeRisi wanted "more more about the viral load in CFS patients and how the demographics of the control group matched that of CFS patients" does not question the rigor of the entire study. Murine leukemia viruses may be a common contaminant of laboratory cultures but the DeRisi reference does not actually state this, only DeRisi's opinion that, "the Mikovits team didn't do enough to rule out contamination". Coffin explained contamination was not an issue in the Science commentary. IMO a debate about merits and demerits of the study in this article is unwarranted. I replaced DeRisi's comment with a different DeRisi comment in the reference I thought was more important and was discussed previously in this section. I will await consensus on the issue. Ward20 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ward20, the current wording is unacceptable. That they are "questioning the rigour of the study" is your interpretation of DeRisi's comments. What the article actually says is: [DeRisi] "was not satisfied with details in the paper". They read completely differently. "questioning the rigour" is a much stronger statement. Also you have given undue emphasis to the negative comments without counterbalancing with any of the positive comments. Why quote just DeRisi from that article and not Kerr or Coffin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangermouse72 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Sciencewatcher above: "It needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or equivalent to be reliable for MEDRS". The last time I looked the New York Times was not a peer-reviewed journal. Reeve's comments do not belong in an encyclopaedic article. His bias "I do not expect the results to be replicated" and yours are obvious. Please keep this article neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangermouse72 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the comments are peer reviewed. The research itself doesn't pass MEDRS because it is a small single study, so if you don't want the critical comments we will just have to remove the entire study. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MEDRS does not say that primary sources can not be included. It says that secondary sources should be used whenever possible. However XMRV is a newly discovered retrovirus and secondary sources do not exist as yet. So we have to use reliable primary sources. Reliable primary sources such as the Science XMRV article. Science being the most prestigious science journal in the world. All the other articles cited on XMRV are primary. Are you going to delete those too or only the ones that don't conform to your bias? Dangermouse72 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be wise to refrain from saying that I have a 'bias'. Nobody is saying that we can't include the study. We just need to put in the necessary caveats, which you seem to be averse to. Regarding the other stuff in the article: it isn't a single study, and that makes all the difference. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to caution all editors of this page to be careful about straying into making personal comments. CFS has historically been a very contentious topic on Wikipedia and has resulted in several bans if I remember correctly. Wikipedia is not a forum to be used to argue for or against any particular view of CFS.

Secondly, if we are going to use primary research as a source, on the basis of its coverage in the popular media and its perceived importance to a patient community, then it is imperative that we present the research in the proper context. That context includes the caveats presented by respected scientists in the "the most prestigious science journal in the world", namely that the study has several, potentially major, flaws. It also includes the context of historical claims of infection associations, including retrovirus associations. If the proper context is not given for CFS, as it is, by the way, for prostate cancer, the primary research should not be cited at all or only to support a very brief statement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that this isn't an article on CFS but on XMRV. I'm not sure what you mean by "coverage in the popular media". Have you read the paper?

"Presenting research in the proper context" is fine. But what you are doing is introducing bias, and violating WP:NPOV.

1. Firstly who says the study has "several, potentially major flaws"? Can you give a reference for that, or is this your own statement?

2. The journal commentary presents a number of viewpoints. You seem to have ignored all those expressing favourable opinions (e.g. Coffin & Kerr) and cherry-picked the negative comments for inclusion. Not only that but you have used far stronger language (e.g. "flaws") than the original commentator.

3. You have mentioned DeRisi's concerns (e.g. contamination), but not Coffin's response to those concerns, thus again biasing the reader.

4. You also mention that DeRisi is one of the discoverers of XMRV. Yet you completely ignore the fact that the paper is co-authored by the other discoverer of XMRV, namely Silverman. This strongly biases the reader against accepting the paper. Either include a reference to both discoverers or neither of them.

5. In the prostate cancer section "context" is provided by listing the negative studies alongside positive studies. This is the correct way to provide "context", rather than introducing unfair bias.

6. The reference to "previous retroviruses" belongs in the CFS entry and not the XMRV entry. Its inclusion here serves only to bias the reader against the Science paper. This is an article on XMRV and its association with various diseases, not on the history of CFS. Dangermouse72 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The study clearly does have potential flaws - that is a fair summary of what DeRisi and Reeves say. We can't balance with other studies because, unlike prostate cancer, there is only a single study. Given those facts, if we want to include the study we need to include the necessary caveats. While comments from scientists wouldn't normally be MEDRS, in this case it is all that we have. If you want to then say we can't include the comments then we shouldn't be including the study at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to remind editors to stop making personal accusations, for example of bias and cherry picking. Continued behaviour of this sort will not be looked upon with indulgence. If you have alternative language to propose, by all means do so.

The argument here is an excellent reminder of why secondary sources are the preferred sources for medicine-related articles: in review articles, experts in their field describe recent findings in the light of old, and their descriptions are also (usually) passed through peer review. As Wikipedia editors, we take on this task to our peril (and, occasionally, our sanity), and the article suffers as barbs are exchanged back and forth and needless trivia is added. There is no need, for example, to include the institutions of the authors of the Science paper; if we do, then we would also would have to name the University of California as standing behind DeRisi's criticisms. No doubt someone could then refer to the various institutions attended by the various authors and critics to make the implied point that one side or the other has the better-educated individuals and may be more competent. In other words, this is a dangerous path to follow and one that does nothing for the project.

If users feel that the current description of XMRV/CFS is unacceptable for whatever reason, then we should go back to something more acceptable under RECENTISM and MEDRS, for example, "A 2009 study in Science reported a possible association between XMRV infection and CFS". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

XMRV may allow replication-incompetent gene therapy vectors to spread

I don't have time but someone may want to add this material. XMRV A Natural Human Retrovirus Efficiently Complements Vectors Based on Murine Leukemia Virus.full text

I hope you don't mind that I've refactored the header...just wanted to make sure there's no misunderstanding. This article examines the possible effects of XMRV infection on the safety of gene therapy vectors. These retroviral vectors, sometimes based on MLV, are designed to deliver and integrate a healthy copy of a gene, but to be replication-incompetent so they won't spread further. XMRV is an MLV, and the authors test the possibility that XMRV components in an infected cell could allow these vectors to become replication competent. Viral evolution implications are also discussed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't read enough on this topic to be exacting in the wording. Ward20 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Details, details

I'm slightly concerned with the direction this article has been taking. A rule of thumb I apply to science-related articles holds that when you start seeing "et al", or when every sentence contains an 'n', you're reading an academic, not an encyclopaedic, article. XMRV is new. 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)

• Concur. Abductive (reasoning) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've again reverted addition of author names et al. to the article. Unless the authors are themselves notable, as could well be the case for Silverman and DeRisi, this is a distracting and unhelpful level of detail for an encyclopaedia. As, I would suggest, are the raw data from primary studies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Even when authors are notable, it's unusual to include their names unless there's a specific reason to do so, be it disambiguation within a section, because the author is of prime importance, or whatever else. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

I just undid the deletion of referenced material by an unregistered editor. This talk page should now be temporarily locked to protect it from this vandalism.

If someone disagrees with material posted here, they should not remove the material more than once (at most). WP has many resources for resolving differences between editors. Edit wars are not permitted. Editors not adhering to WP policies risk being banned. David spector (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, it was a self-revert. It was added and removed by the same IP address. I've re-removed it for now, but if I did misunderstand something, please feel free to put it back in place. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should the updated data about the prevalence of XMRV in CFS patients be reflected in this article?

I refer you to my previous comments under Possible stronger relation to CFS to watch for. Jclark77 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP home page has news reports. I see nothing wrong with tracking current developments in articles, as long as there is some qualification. Otherwise, a world of WP readers may get the idea that "scientists" or "researchers" in general agree with the implications of early research results such as these XMRV reports. Since I have CFS, I take a personal interest. If these reports are replicated and result in effective diagnosis and treatment, I'll be among the first in line. David spector (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be against the inclusion of that information, based on the fact that it's never been vetted by anybody. It's not uncommon for researchers to try to hype-up their figures in order to attract research funding and we have no way of knowing the accuracy of that statement. She said it off-the-cuff with no stats or methodology to back it up. At this point, I don't really even consider it to be primary, so much as it's more in the line of a rumour. As someone else with CFS, I really hope it's true, but at the moment, we really only have her say-so. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were referring to the obvious "enthusiasm" of Mekovits, I would agree, however, I am referring to the testimony of Dr. Peterson to the CFSAC I provided in my previous remarks. However, I shall relink it here to avoid this conclusion again [5]. Dr. Peterson begins his remarks around the 1 hour 25 minute mark. Jclark77 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus is susceptible to AZT.

Just found this. Obviously just a primary source, but I think it warrants a mention. [6] Jclark77 (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A retrovirus responds to antiretroviral drugs, just as a bacterium responds to antibiotics, a fungus to antifungals and so forth. The susceptibility of MLVs to AZT has been known for some time (see pmid11527046). Is there something about this article (press coverage?) that would warrant a mention? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We also need to be careful that we're not providing medical advice. There has been a lot of attention on XMRV lately due to the possible association with CFS and CFS patients as a group tend to be eager for a cure for their (our) illness. It's not advisable for Wikipedia to provide unproven treatments for a virus that might or might not be the cause of CFS. This is exactly what WP:MEDRS warns against and why they strongly encourage the use of secondary, peer-reviewed sources. It's one thing to include information about a possible disease association based on an article in Science, with suitable caveats, but to then go on to suggest an unproven treatment for it is really starting to build a house of cards. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider this giving medical advice. I too have CFS, as if you didn't already guess. I sure as heck wouldn't try it until some further studies have been done. Long term use of AZT can have hellish symptoms too, so we have no way of knowing how people with XMRV will react in the long term. We still have 3 stages of trials to go though before it is fda approved, if it gets that. I suspect it will be fasttracked though, but I digress. We should still cite it, but I am very flexible about how we word it, as not to proprose treatment. Jclark77 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is slightly premature, but should at least make the reader aware this was a study in vitro. Ward20 (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The section is slightly premature (Ward), RobinHood calls it a "house of card", I urged against its inclusion, and I don't see any Wikipedia policy that would support an entire article section built upon a primary source. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, as XMRV has not yet been shown to cause any disease, it is probably also premature to speak of treatment or therapy. I simply don't see a reason for including this study given the established knowledge of AZT inhibition of MLVs, the lack of in vivo data and, at least for now, the lack of commentary from other scientists (in contrast with XMRV/CFS and XMRV/prostate cancer). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

After having read your point of view on AIDS, and now this, I am starting to get an idea of your modus operandi. I'm sorry, primary results, where none others exist, are sufficient per WP:MEDRS, and by deleting it, you are pov pushing. Research has been done in the realm of treatment, despite weather you deemed it worthy of research, that is the single reason they did the research in the first place! In NO way am I construing that someone should ask their doctors to prescribe AZT. All the section "Treatment" means is that research has been done to "treat" an infection, not if it causes any disease, which some very smart people think is worth researching, which is neither here nor there. Frankly, it is not up to you or me to decide if their research is worth mentioning, that is you pushing your point of view. We are providing an encyclopedic annotation of events and information in regards to this topic, not if it is up to snuff in your opinion. Bring me more information about research related to treatment, and I will give it fair weight. Until then, I will follow MEDRS and this quote: "In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible." Reverted, with the caveat, Possible Future Treatments will be the title. Jclark77 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jclark: you don't appear to have made very many edits on wikipedia, so I would respectfully suggest that you don't accuse highly experienced editors such as Keepcalmandcarryon of 'pov pushing'. From what I can see, Keepcalmandcarryon is the most NPOV editor on this page. Anyway, back to the point. Just because something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't automatically mean we can/should include it in wikipedia. We have to consider WP:Weight and WP:NPOV among other policies. The problem, as others have pointed out above, is that it is premature to have a 'treatment' section for a virus that we don't even know if it causes any illness! Your suggestion to rename the section 'possible future treatments' is a helpful suggestion, but your personal attacks on other editors don't help your cause. And as Keepcalmandcarryon points out, writing an entire section on a single study would probably be against WP:Weight. I'd suggest you calm down, listen to the comments, and offer some suggestions for rewriting the section if you still think it should be added. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am by no means attacking Keepcalmandcarryon's dedication or noble work on Wikipedia. I am, however, questioning his unadulterated right to determine the merits of a study. This is not a personal attack. If a study came out tomorrow suggesting that XMRV was caused by laughing too much, I may not agree, but if it was peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal, I would be compelled to include it. If I were to delete said mention of it in the article, I would, in fact, be pov pushing, and would expect other editors to see the error of my ways, and fix it to reflect the appropriate content, which, in the lack of secondary sources which is, in fact, primary sources.

As an aside, a lot of people are sensitive about information in regards to CFS, and the implications XMRV may have on the field. This partially stems, I'm sure, from the fact that CFS research has been a bunch of vague ideas, smoke and mirrors, and arcane wisdom for a long time. The community is epitomized as a spurned group of people burned by the ignorance of the larger medical community for the better part of a quarter of a century. That is why presenting the most data, without pushing any particular point of view is the most important thing here. The job here is not to decide what the reader needs to know or does not; our job is to present all reputable data , primary sources included, and let the reader decide based on available data. This means, that if a study came out tomorrow say that the XMRV /CFS connection was refuted, I would happily remove the appropriate data, as it should be with everyone. Additionally, including the first study in a new area of research is not giving undue weight, in fact not including it is undue weight in the opposite direction; that there is no possible treatment. Jclark77 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a 'pov pusher' most definitely is a personal attack. And you are very wrong about 'our job is to present all reputable data , primary sources included, and let the reader decide based on available data'. That most definitely is NOT what we do in wikipedia. I really think you need to read through all the policies and guidelines before making any further edits. I will be reverting your change until consensus is reached. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

@Jclark77, There are quite a few CFS sufferers involved in editing articles in this area. I am one and am very interested in tracking these XMRV developments, but most of us accept that the WP:MEDRS guidelines are there for very valid reasons. There are quite a lot of follow-up studies going on at the moment including the trialling of a number of anti-retrovirals on XMRV-positve CFS sufferers. However, until their results are reported in the public domain by appropriate publication, and preferably then reviewed and analysed by the domain experts, this is all purely reportage and speculation. None of this belongs in a Wiki medical article. I suspect that we will start to see these being brought into reference and article content by mid next year. TerryE (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Contamination

I have several rather minor issues with Sam Weller's language in a recent edit, which states, "The invited commentary in Science pointed out that transmission was unlikely to be a laboratory contaminant".

First, transmission should be replaced with XMRV; transmission (as implied between humans or between mice and humans) is not contamination. Second, "pointed out" implies fact; we are currently experiencing fact deficit and speculation surfeit on XMRV. Third, "unlikely to be a laboratory contaminant" is inconsistent with my reading of the passage. In fact, Coffin and Stoye note that MuLVs are indeed common laboratory contaminants, and that XMRV is essentially a MuLV: "The propensity of xenotropic MLVs to infect rapidly dividing human cells has made them common contaminants in cultured cells, particularly in certain human tumor cell lines", followed by: "There is more than 90% DNA sequence identity between XMRV and xenotropic MLV, and their biological properties are virtually indistinguishable (6–9), leaving little doubt that the former is derived from the latter by one or more cross-species transmission events."

Of course, Coffin and Stoye also write, "There are several lines of evidence that transmission happened in the outside world and was not a laboratory contaminant. One is that XMRVs from disparate locations and from both chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer patients are nearly identical: The viral genomes differ by only a few nucleotides, whereas there are hundreds of sequence differences between XMRVs and xenotropic murine leukemia proviruses of laboratory mice. Other evidence includes the presence of XMRV and high amounts of antibodies to XMRV and other MLVs in chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer patients."

Given the apparent ambivalence, perhaps Sam Weller's line could be rewritten to: "However, the invited commentary in Science suggested that XMRV might not be a contaminant"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Sam Weller (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of a bias into the Chronic Fatigue Section

First of all an apology for missing the late dialogue in the section Reversions, but this was started in October. I've come back to this article after a month's break and am somewhat surprised at some of the changes and in particular the new comment "whilst others, including the co-discoverer of XMRV, Joseph DeRisi, pointed out potential flaws in the research and stated the critical need for a third-party lab to validate the results of the study in double blind experiments before claims should be made." referencing three items:

• Coffin JM, Stoye JP (October 2009). "Virology. A new virus for old diseases?". Science 326 (5952): 530–1. doi:10.1126/science.1181349. PMID 19815721.
• Kean, Sam (09 October 2009). "Chronic fatigue and prostate cancer: A retroviral connection?". Science 326 (5950): 215. doi:10.1126/science.326_215a.
• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/13fatigue.html?_r=1&ref=health

Now am I just going senile but I believe that the DeRisi attribution is hearsay from the third of these, an article actually written by Dennis Grady, a staff science reporter working for the NYT. Likewise the second of these is a commentary by a member of the Science editorial staff who has no relevant papers according to Pubmed and is therefore not a credible authority in his own right. Neither of these are therefore appropriate references for inclusion in this article. Coffin comments in his article and his public testimony to the CFASC. He summarised the position nicely in his CFASC testimony: "This was as good as it gets for a first paper, but it is still just a first paper." which I supposed could be regarded as "cautious optimism". Other domain experts such as Prof Vincent Racaniello ([7] and referenced podcast) have also been cautiously optimistic ("the best new virology work in 2009"). (BTW I fully acknowledge that podcasts and blogs aren't peer reviewed articles, but at least the authors are prominent domain experts and the words are their own, not hearsay from staff journalists.)

The wording is also poor:

• Double Blind has a specific technical meaning in trial design and it is intended to remove subjective bias on the part of both the experimenter and the experimental subject. Surely what is mean here is "blind trials" (without the "double")?
• Third party has many meanings but most relate to contract law and refer to someone independent or separate from the contracting (first and second) parties. Just who is the second party here anyway?
• "Claims being made". The authors of the paper have been very careful to limit their conclusions to those presented in the paper and the supplementary data. Let's leave wild claims and conclusions to the journalists, bloggers, et al and not implicitly attribute them to the paper's authors.

This wording implies a lack of credibility in the paper and a schism amongst these domain experts. Most of them seem cautiously optimistic, if not excited. Yes, (like any piece of grownd-breaking research) it can have potential flaws, and being ground breaking, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Of course it needs verification by an independent research team, before we can have confidence in its conclusions. Welcome to the world of Science.

Can we please remove this unnecessary sensationalism from this article? How about replacing:

"whilst others, including the co-discoverer of XMRV, Joseph DeRisi, pointed out potential flaws in the research and stated the critical need for a third-party lab to validate the results of the study in double blind experiments before claims should be made."

with a more neutral:

"however this is a first paper in this area and its conclusions have yet to be supported by independent verification."

Surely a verifiable DeRisi quotation (that is authored by DeRisi himself) would only add value if it materially differs in emphasis from this wording?

TerryE (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a very small needle we are trying to thread.  :)

• Double Blind is probably not correct as you point out. The Times said that and I copied them. Upon rethinking, I believe it can possibly be double blind in that neither the researchers nor the laboratories know who the study populations are until after the data is analyzed.
• Third party is often used to designate a neutral party. Independent is probably better wording.
• "Claims being made" is somewhat ambiguous from the times source. I believe it relates not to the Science article, but to Mikovits' statements in the Times article. I put a comma in to try to separate the study from the "Claims being made", but I'm sure it could be worded better.

"however this is a first paper in this area and its conclusions have yet to be supported by independent verification.", sounds reasonable and neutral to me, but what RS has stated that? Ward20 (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My counter is what RS stated "whilst others, including the co-discoverer of XMRV, Joseph DeRisi, pointed out potential flaws in the research and stated the critical need for a third-party lab to validate the results of the study in double blind experiments before claims should be made."? I guess it was taken from the NYT article, but is this exactly what DeRisi said and intended to be quoted on record? I know from personal experience the shifts that can occur with journalistic licence in reporting. We don't need to construct our articles with a string as exact wording from RS as long as the wording is thus supported. The qualification is consistent with previous wording but removes the contentious phrasing. It's consistent with Coffin's comments in the quoted reference and in his testimony to the CFASC as well as the discussions of Racaniello, Rodriguez et al on TWIV #55: a self-evident facet of the Scientific Method that most science-educated readers would take as a given, but that lay readers might find of value.

BTW, Rodriquez is one of the lead researchers in the XMRV area and has recently published:

Rodriguez JJ, Goff SP. "Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus Establishes an Efficient Spreading Infection and Exhibits Enhanced Transcriptional Activity In Prostate Carcinoma Cells". J Virol. 2009 Dec 16. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 20015990.

TerryE (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Leading questions are asked so an news article can be constructed as point-counterpoint. Journalism is sometimes about controversy and entertainment. IMO, taking the sources together, a reasonable person would conclude the qualification is consistent. The problem is by stitching the sources together the material becomes vulnerable to a counter-argument of WP:SYN. I have seen WP:SYN often done to advance a point of view, so it's a useful policy. There must be an RS out there that states more or less your qualification. As I recall however, there was disagreement in the Reversions section about eliminating the "critical comments" wording. Just saying.

Thanks for the link to the study. Ward20 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your right. I just was trying to find an unbiased middle ground, but I don't really want to be accused of advancing a POV. However given that the original "quote" is hearsay from a source that isn't itself a RS for a medical article, then perhaps it is better just to delete it than to try to substitute alternative wording. I feel it unlikely that DeRisi would have phrased it in such a technically slopy manner (for the reasons that I mentioned above). TerryE (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's a quote published in an article or editorial in Science, then it's good enough for us. Same as if a quote is published in NY Times or whatever - in that case it will also be a journalist writing the article, but because the NY Times is a reliable source we don't question whether the person really said it - we can assume the newspaper didn't just make it up! Of course you're right that it isn't MEDRS, but we're just looking for comments from scientists as discussed above - it only has to pass WP:RS in that case. As soon as we get a good review (or even another primary study), we'll remove all the comments. As noted above, a primary study like this also wouldn't pass MEDRS for writing an entire article section. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) SW, I note that:

• Keepcalmandcarryon introduced the wording "whilst others, including the co-discoverer of XMRV, Joseph DeRisi, questioned the rigour of the studies and noted that murine leukemia viruses are a common contaminant of laboratory cultures." on 01:50-02:32, 14 Dec citing the Kean reference.
• Ward20 changed the wording to "..., stated the critical need for a third-party lab to validate the results of the study in double blind experiments before claims should be made" on 07:33, 14 Dec.
• Sciencewatcher introduced the words "pointed out potential flaws in the research and" on 19:10, 14 Dec citing the NYT article.

Having just checked, neither "DeRisi" nor "potential flaws" are used in the NYT article. I've also just spent $15 with Science trying (and failing) to get access to the Kean article, so could someone please give me the exact complete paragraph which includes this quotation from this article which supports this text? If we can't, then all reference to "RS" is just a bunch of hokum and this text needs to be removed. — TerryE (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"All previous attempts to nail down a cause for CFS—including many links to viral infections—have foundered or been retracted, and many doctors remain doubtful that it’s a coherent disease. Mikovits says her work “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CFS is a real disease.” But some of her peers find the report of a viral link premature. | Joseph DeRisi, a molecular biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who co-discovered XMRV, was not satisfied with details in the paper: He wanted to know more about the viral load in CFS patients and how the demographics of the control group matched that of CFS patients. And the Mikovits team didn’t do enough to rule out contamination, he says. “One has to be very careful about making claims about such a sensitive and emotionally charged issue as CFS, where many claims have been made in the past.” At the least, a double-blind study where a third-party lab searches for XMRV in CFS patients and in controls is vital, he says. | Other CFS specialists, including Jonathan Kerr at St. George’s University of London, are convinced that the Mikovits team discovered something important. “The fact that the virus was actually grown from the blood cells of CFS patients strongly suggests some sort of role in the pathogenesis of the disease.” But exactly what they discovered remains unclear, given that the group is not claiming to have identified a cause. | John Coffin, a molecular biologist at Tufts University in Boston, analyzed the Mikovits paper in a separate “Perspective” also published online by Science (www.sciencemag. org/cgi/content/abstract/1181349). Coffin was highly skeptical of the paper at first, but the team found enough independent lines of evidence for XMRV to convert him. “They will be celebrating in the clinics where these people [with CFS] are being treated,” he now says."

Sam Weller (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sam you just beat me to the "Save Page" with the following:

OK, I can now answer my own challenges. I've found a copy of the Kean editorial here, and the paras in question are: <... as per Sam's text ... >

So I give my apologies to the above, as this definitely isn't hokum on their part. Yet let's pick this apart:

• I was a statement given by DiRisi to Kean prior to the publication of the paper and he wanted to know more details as at 9 Oct. The testimony at the Nov CFASC meeting and et make it clear that the WPI have since engaged in constructive information sharing.
• The contamination point has already been addressed above.
• The point about "care about making claims such a sensitive and emotionally charged issue as CFS,..." is a very valid one.
• Kean does attribute the wording "double-blind study" and "third-part lab" to him. As I said above (and more the point Coffin, et al said) another blind study needs to be carried out by an independent lab/research team before we have confidence in the findings.

I still feel that the current wording implies a current schism between the WPI and XMRV teams, and given that this article seems itself to be a widely quoted reference on the Internet, I feel that we should not be doing this without firm evidence. Incidentally, the above Rodriguez article (one codiscovers of XMRV with DeRisi) cites the WPI findings. TerryE (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'potential flaws' was just a summary of DeRisi and Reeves' comments, neither of them used those exact words. If you can come up with a better summary, go ahead. The intention was never to infer a schism - it was simply to point out that this is new research, scientists have pointed out valid concerns, and we should note that. The full text of all those articles is on the internet if you just search for the titles. Let me know if you need the urls. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of SW's statements. It's questionable to base an entire section on a primary source, but if we're going to do it, we need to include the context. At the same time, I fear we're getting into too much detail and unneeded argument, including speculation about motives and schisms and emotional charge. Let's just wait for the inevitable review, probably making its way to press right now. And I, too, will be pleased to help with a source/text if needed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Erlwein, et al.

I edited the CFS section after reading today's report in PLoS ONE. The issue of weight is somewhat tricky here. The Science study was first, and likely garnered much more media attention than will the PLoS ONE follow-up, but the PLoS ONE study is larger and appears to be more rigorous.

I mentioned the possibility, discussed by the PLoS ONE authors, that XMRV is found in North America and not in the UK. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandcarryon: Thank you for the addition. It looks very good to me. As a fatigue sufferer, I'm disappointed, but your wording is excellent. David spector (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I made small (I believe) changes to the cfs section for accuracy and tone. Ward20 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am disappointed: identify the target, and effective treatment will practically present itself. But as Wessely stated in press reports today, the PLoS article does not mean necessarily that the Science findings are invalid. Geographic or demographic differences, viral latency, sequestering in tissue: possible explanations for different results, even if some would appear statistically implausible. Neither article is the final word on CFS and XMRV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From someone who has edited the CFS articles and witnessed much posturing about journal-based weight issues, I am surprised that non-PubMed-indexed papers from open access journals are allowed at Wikipedia to counteract papers from the mighty "unquestionable" journals like Science, regardless of the methodology which could explain the discrepancy of results between studies (a slight pun intended, but not towards you). In the true spirit of PLoS ONE, "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors."[8] Can we now challenge Wikipedia's obsession with PubMed? ;-) - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the edit journey that Ward20, Keepcalmandcarryon and Dangermouse72 have taken I feel that the two paras now present a balanced summary of the two primary research papers, one indicating a strong XMRV/CFS correlation and one zero correlation. If we see further papers published in the coming months together with a decent secondary review, then this will give us the basis to expand this section. Is any of us sufficiently qualified to discuss the comparative rigour or merits of these two studies in the meanwhile? -- TerryE (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

More from Sam Kean: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Attacked Again. ScienceNOW Daily News 6 January 2010 [9] Sam Weller (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tekaphor, PLoS ONE is a PubMed-indexed journal. Because the paper was published online only yesterday, it will take some time (days? a week or more?) for NCBI to add it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also a response from WPI, which whilst interesting I don't feel appropriate for inclusion in the main article. As I said before: I am sure that published evidence over the coming months will help resolve this situation. -- TerryE (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion of Erlwein study at PLoS comments by commenter DustyMiller and author Myra O. McClure. Ward20 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure Keepcalmandcarryon. I'm just used to the Wikipedian trend of ignoring or removing research unless it has been fully indexed at PubMed. Perhaps things are done differently outside the CFS articles. I'm not qualified for that TerryE, but I'm not convinced that the new study is more rigorous, especially with patient selection. But like others have said, many more studies will soon follow. The commentary in the URL's presented above have been interesting. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was interested in the comments on the PLoS paper, plus the various criticism of technique in both studies. The two methods do see to be different in ways that expert commentators feel important. Like you, Tekaphor I am also troubled that the sample-set was chosen and provided by Prof Wessely from his clinic's patients. Few UK CFS sufferers would volunteer to attend a psychiatric day-attendance clinic where the main treatment regimes are GET and CBT. TerryE (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find the original source for this statement, but it looks somewhat unequivocal:

'Dr. Mikovits, the head researcher on the original Science paper finding the XMRV retrovirus in CFS patients, states, "...if we used the methods of this [Erlwein] paper we would fail to find XMRV in a single one of our positives (that is, samples where XMRV has been isolated from each one)....EVER.'[10]

Sam Weller (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a trawl and the only references came back to the GMA posting. GMA is a group of half a dozen MDs who focus on alternative medicine. Having chased up the relevant references and protocols in both papers, it is plausible but that is a long way from WP:RS. There are lots of fun discussions on the blogsphere and some comments that quite a few other groups are in currently going more conventional review cycle prior to publishing. If this is the case we will know one way or another soon. That seems to be a better point to update the article -- TerryE (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all a bit weird. I don't think any of us here has the ability to figure out which team used the correct methods, but it certainly sounds like one of them messed up somewhere. Most of the patients believe the WPI results simply because they want to. All we can do is wait and see. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikovits thinks IC "skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood." and "suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study." Sam Weller (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I think we should add this quote to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I would suggest, though, that Whittemore Peterson Institute is a more appropriate location for this quote. Trash talk is not science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that the controversy is in the WPI article it would be better there. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lombardi's lab making money from XMRV test

It makes me very suspicious that a lab where Lombardi is a director is making money from the unvalidated XMRV test. Should we mention this conflict of interest in the article? --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From yesterday's Science article by Kean: "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test, 300 of which have been administered so far" --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's speculation and innuendo. Some very major news source must print it specifically and corroborate it. The shoddy and inaccurate reporting on these studies by the news sources is disgusting by the way. Imperial College London News Release "However, several labs in the US now offer CFS patients treatments based on the earlier findings that linked the condition with XMRV." Utter unadulterated horse manure. Ward20 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lombardi's interest is mentioned in a "note added in proof" to the Science paper: "V.C.L. is operations manager of Viral Immune Pathologies Laboratory, which is in negotiations with the Whittemore Peterson Institute to offer a dianostic test for XMRV" (that's Science's typo). Both Lombardi and Whittemore Peterson stand to make money from a diagnostic test.

Still, I oppose adding this to the section, which is already in my opinion too long for its britches. With the wide variety of news sources available, those who wish to go into more detail about the politics and media coverage could probably create a spin-off article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article should mention this guy's test at all, it would just be free advertizing for it. Abductive (reasoning) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think people should have the info. It seems very important in my opinion, and we don't mention it at all. And as I pointed out above, two scientists have already criticised Lombardi for offering the test. It's not advertising his test if we put it in context, starting off with "lombardi has been criticised...". Just one sentence. I think this is more important than some of the other comments we have - in fact I would say we should just remove most of those now that we have a second study. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the published, specific criticism, combined with the note added in proof in Science (unless I'm mistaken, this means the conflict was not originally disclosed or didn't exist during the writing process) would probably satisfy sourcing requirements. And you're probably correct: this information is now more interesting than the historically relevant "cautious optimism" sentence. I wouldn't oppose a concise statement with corresponding cuts. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the material is added to this article then IMO it will become a coat rack and the statement, "His test results (Lombardi's) also bolster the science in the original paper--he says 36% of tests have detected XMRV, including a few from the United Kingdom."[11], as well as a million other newspaper quotes will probably be added. Ward20 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any CFS researchers who don't make money from whatever test or treatment they promote or claim is effective? Specialised assays? Supplements? CBT/GET? - Tekaphor (TALK) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@sciencewatcher, Can we please keep unnecessary liable off this discussion: "...Lombardi is making money from...". If you want to see the WPI position then here is their Press Release. The licence fees are "dedicated to further WPI research". What is your evidence that Lombardi is personally benefiting from this? By this argument Wikipedia should caveat any reference where the work is part funded by a vested interest such as a drug company. Whilst this might have a politically unwise step, we have no direct evidence of exactly why Coffin and McClure were uneasy: was it the financial aspect, or reacting to a demand for patient tests which are currently clinically irrelevant, or ... ? I can think of a few other possible reasons (for example, WPI might not want to be bombarded by patients asking for XMRV tests so doing this creates a simple redirection sink-hole for this stream).

We already have WP:MEDRS to guide us. Introducing direct Primary Research for new fields is OK. Direct RS comments by relevant experts is OK. Tittle-tattle and further paraphrasing of hearsay by journalists is not, IMHO. So I would oppose any additions along this line. Keep to the relevant facts. -- TerryE (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I ditto everything TerryE just said. Please focus on the science. Dangermouse72 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat rack?

A link to the CFS main article was added with the edit summary "added WP:Hatrack". I don't know why the link was added instead of *{{Coat rack}}. However I don't think this section is a coat rack when I read What is not a coatrack. The notability of XMRV is mainly with these two studies right now. This will of course change, and the article should reflect changes in the future. Ward20 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the above. I've removed it. Dangermouse72 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning to all involved editors

I'm sorry to be harsh, but I've seen this coming for a while and I'm not going to stand by and let it happen to this article. No matter what your position on CFS and XMRV, it is inappropriate to add editorial commentary to the article as Dangermouse72 and Harvey Whittemore have done. This is especially so when such commentary disparages the work of others.

Until now, the sourcing requirements for medicine-related articles have been slightly relaxed here because of the novelty of this research. Because of the strong points of view and conflicts we are now beginning to observe, we can't do this anymore. From this point forward, everything in this article will be taken directly from a peer-reviewed article in a peer-reviewed source. Commentaries don't count, nor do newspaper articles or institutional press releases. We will have a brief statement about both current articles. Anything that is added must be directly from the articles.

On a final note, please read and follow the talk page rules. The is not a recommended reading list, a blog, a discussion group or a place to vent. Henceforth, inappropriate additions, whether to the article or the talk page, will be removed. If you are here to promote your institute, lobby for a particular position on CFS or for any reason other than building an encyclopaedia, please do Wikipedia and yourself a favour: change your ways or leave. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is the best solution. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Too Keepcalmandcarryon - Please don't make accusations without supporting evidence. What "editorial commentary" that I have supposedly made are you referring to? What comments have I made disparaging the work of others? And please do yourself a favour and stop acting as if this page is your personal feifdom. Dangermouse72 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the edit you added saying they 'claimed to have' used a PCR technique that can detect a single cell. If they say in the source they used it, then you shouldn't add 'claimed to', otherwise you are implying they might be lying. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your guideline points, and I support the current edit: short and to the point avoiding all this controversy. I do have difficulty with your specific wording because AFAIK you have no special Wikipedia role and are simply an active contributor. In particular I find it unreasonable to single out individuals without reference to specific case evidence. To sw previous points Dangermouse was editing to soften a previous contribution "The authors used a PCR detection technique sensitive to one copy of XMRV per sample and noted that they, unlike the authors of the previous study, had taken steps to prevent contamination of human samples with mouse viruses or XMRV vectors." [My itals]. Including such a contentious comparative statement was ill judged and should have been discussed before inclusion. It invites response and comparison which is something that we should avoid. Let's leave that to the experts. But just who introduced this piece of editing that triggered your intervention? 6 January 2010 Keepcalmandcarryon. Now there's irony for you. -- TerryE (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since there is actual reliably sourced third-party coverage of the questions generated by these conflicting findings (e.g. [12]), it shouldn't be hard to summarize them using available sources rather than resorting to personal editorial spins, right? MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's the problem. There's ~1000 words in this article and there are other RS. So how do you pick an agreed 50, say. That's why we slid down this spit-bat in the first place. I agree with Keepcalmandcarryon on this. Zero is a good number to me. No doubt we'll get some decent MEDRS within a few months anytway. TerryE (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Whittemore Peterson Institute would be more suited for documenting the various arguments and counterarguments using journalistic sources. Sorry to all if I came across as an ogre, but, in my opinion, the hype doesn't belong in this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I see that you've added a

Main article: Whittemore Peterson Institute § XMRV/CFS controversy

to the CFS section. Can I suggest an alternative? I think that this article (and this section) is the main article covering the medical facts on XMRV and CFS. The WPI article summarises the controversy aspects. Wouldn't it be better to add a final para to this section and move the main article reference next to that:

Main article: Whittemore Peterson Institute § XMRV/CFS controversy

The conflicting conclusions of these papers has lead to some controversy.

-- TerryE (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)