Positive FDA/NIH Paper on XMRV & CFS to Be Published “Within Weeks,” CFIDS Association States

The world-famous paper by FDA/NIH researchers reporting that they found evidence of XMRV in ME/CFS patients’ blood will be published “within weeks,” according to the CFIDS Association of America.

A posting dated Friday July 9 on the CFIDS Association Facebook page notes that a sentence has been added to their article titled “XMRV Link Accelerates Scientific and Media Interest.”

Specifically, the revised article now states, at the end of the eighth paragraph: “The researchers have conducted additional experiments as requested by the reviewers and their paper is expected to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences within weeks.”

Though no source is cited, the CAA further commented (just before 11 am Pacific time, July 9) on Facebook that “The information comes from several well-informed people close to the study with whom we are in regular contact.”

July 12 Post Scripts:

Mindy Kitei reported on CFSCentral.com that PNAS editor-in-chief Dr. Randy Schekman informed her they expect the positive paper’s authors to return it to them for standard editorial board consideration “within weeks.”

There still seems to be time to register for the CAA’s July 15 XMRV webinar. Columbia University virologist Vincent Racaniello and expert ME/CFS/FM physician Lucinda Bateman, MD, will discuss the future of XMRV-CFS research and what we’re likely to learn.

And see Cort Johnson’s excellent July 12 report on his recent interview with Dr. Racaniello & the WPI’s Dr. Judy Mikovits (“A different kind of XMRV?”), in which they speculate on technical reasons why the CDC researchers and others have not been able to detect XMRV in CFS patients’ blood.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (123 votes, average: 3.25 out of 5)

5 thoughts on “Positive FDA/NIH Paper on XMRV & CFS to Be Published “Within Weeks,” CFIDS Association States”

  1. OtisQuila says:

    This is the second time the CAA has obtained ‘exclusive’ facts regarding this paper. It dies make one want to attend their webinar. Is that their goal here? Should they serve as a media outlet? I don’t consider making the news the role of an advocacy organization.

  2. Wildaisy says:

    You’ve got it, Otis. CAA’s seminars need better attendance. What better way to obtain that?

  3. Wildaisy says:

    As Otis said, this is the second time the CAA has said they have secret sources of info about this NIH/FDA paper and publication–WHY DON’T THEY TELL US THE TRUTH? THE WHOLE TRUTH? Or are they just doing this to make themselves look important and get people to attend their webinars?

  4. Pat/CFS/ME/XMRV says:

    What would the CAA have to gain by getting more people to watch their webinars, other than to educate more people?
    They are a not-for-profit organization. No one is paying for the webinars or anything else.
    I think they have connections to the people writing this paper and they are trying their best to get us the information as best they can without disclosing sources that might dry up if exposed.
    What do WE have to gain by criticizing them for trying to help us?

  5. prubear says:

    They’ve always been more PR (for the CDC) than actual advocacy for us, but the webinar sounds genuine, and the speakers are good. Doesn’t mean I’ll join the CAA though.

Leave a Reply