These are all available in full online for now, but may not be available for long:
- Criticism of the original study, submitted by doctors at University of Edinburgh shortly after the October 2009 publication of the original study.
- Criticism of the original study, submitted by Peter White, Simon Wessely, et.al. in the UK shortly after the October 2009 publication of the original study.
- Criticism of the original study, submitted by doctors in the Netherlands shortly after the October 2009 publication of the original study.
- Response to the above criticisms and to the three negative XMRV studies by the original XMRV study's authors.
- Additional support material.
5 comments:
Thanks for this summary. I'm always grateful for it as I find it difficult to assimilate this sort of information these days. It would be good, wouldn't it, if somebody could get around to replicating the WPI study?
Thanks again for posting this when you have your hands full yourself.
That's what I took from it, too. I think that the big study from the CDC and WPI etc. should be the most informative. Wish they'd get a move on it,though!
Thanks for posting!
D.
This should put to rest any malicious rumors about the quality of the original research and give the lie to the idea that the 3 subsequent negative studies used the same methods as this study.
Mark Elliott
I read today (I forgot where) that some don't want to replicate the study with WPI test samples because they feel the are contaminated or might be contaminated?
I agree with Jo. Thank you for the summary. I get lost in the medical terminology. I have to re-read it dozens of times and I'm still not sure I get it.
Post a Comment