Whittemore Institute Responds to the BMJ:
  European Teams Proceeded with Publication
Despite Knowledge of Positive Results  

By Craig Maupin at http://www.cfidsreport.com

(April 12th, 2010) -- In a letter to Prof. Myra McClure on Monday, Annette Whittemore, CEO of the Whittemore-Peterson Institute (WPI), strongly responded to criticism from an editorial in the BMJ (British Medical Journal). The editorial, written by Prof. McClure and her colleague, Prof. Simon Wessely, criticized WPI's publication of a link between a group of CFS patients and a novel retrovirus, XMRV. The editorial based the criticism on several recent studies in Europe, studies led by Dr. Jonathan Kerr and Prof. McClure, that failed to find any link between chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and XMRV, a novel retrovirus.    Another negative study, led by Dr. Frank van Kuppeveld ,was published alongside the editorial in BMJ . Said BMJ’s editor, Dr. Fiona Godlee: "We fast-tracked it" because the study "added to controversial debate" and "our reviewers thought it was well done.”    The Kuppeveld study had been rejected by Lancet shortly before attracting the attention of the BMJ staff and editors.

In her letter, Whittemore revealed that, even though the WPI offered their reagents and technologies to the authors of the studies cited in the BMJ, none of the authors accepted the assistance.    More importantly, Whittemore asserted that her institute had "previously detected XMRV in patient samples from both Dr. Kerr’s and Dr. van Kuppeveld’s cohorts prior to the completion of their own studies."     According to Whittemore: "We have email communication that confirms both doctors were aware of these findings before publishing their negative [results]."   This surprising allegation has prompted much discussion.

Whittemore reiterated her institute's willingness to share technology, to help validate/invalidate findings and to guide research teams struggling with the detection of XMRV: "To help identify the possible reasons for the discrepancies in detection of XMRV, WPI would like to send you known positive patient samples with controls, from the United States in an appropriate number, along with WPI reagents, so that we can help you determine whether your testing methodologies will accurately detect XMRV in a clinical sample of blood.     In addition, WPI would be willing to test a like number of samples from your patient cohort to see if our researchers can detect XMRV in those samples."

Whittemore continued: "This critical exercise would help resolve the question of whether you are using all of the appropriate techniques necessary to detect XMRV in a patient’s sample.    If your tests are able to detect XMRV correctly in the known positives, then the debate can appropriately center on whether we can identify the differences in the patient cohorts which have been the subject of various studies."      Whittemore's letter responds, in part, to Dr. McClure's warning in the British Medical Journal that such cooperation is "unlikely to be soon".

The published link between XMRV and CFS has seemingly raised the level of discussion about a perceived hard-line stance of the BMJ's editors toward CFS.     In a brash, uncharacteristically trash-talking style in the January 2010 edition of the BMJ, McClure and Wessely said that "technical differences are irrelevant" in many validation studies.     Dr. McClure and Prof. Wessely also asserted that "the research community was underwhelmed" by the link between some patients with CFS and XMRV.     The authors decried the lack of acceptance of behavioral and exercise treatments for CFS as "depressing" and urged the research and medical community to begin implementing those treatments as soon as possible, without much regard for XMRV findings.

Dr. Richard Smith, a former editor of BMJ, also criticized the Journal of Science for publishing the link between CFS and XMRV.     As evidence, Dr. Smith cited a previous editorial in BMJ that criticized Science for not publishing the ages and genders of those who tested positive for XMRV.    According to Dr. Smith, Science showed itself to be "scientifically poor," and he accused the Whittemore Institute's researchers of "hiding behind the skirts" of Science.     However, Whittemore responded strongly and unequivocally to Smith's claims:   "The patients in the Science study were well defined in the paper as having CFS by the Fukuda and Canadian consensus definitions of ME/CFS."    The Whittemore-Peterson Institute has maintained that ages and genders are not necessary for the interpretation of viral research.

Editors at BMJ have long been criticized for bias regarding their portrayal of CFS.    According to ME/CFS advocate Tom Kindlon, most "people with ME who have been around a few years would have had a jaundiced view of the British Medical Journal, before any of the XMRV coverage."     Kindlon stated that "basically, no new biological research has been published in the last 15 years in the BMJ," and the "only people asked to write editorials are those who believe CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and GET  (graded exercise) are all patients need."     In a 2000 published review of articles on CFS in BMJ (Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 12:4 2004), several researchers found that "the journal has consistently ignored non-psychiatric professional views on CFS and were unable to find sufficient scientific reason to justify this stance.”

The full letter can be read at Khaly Castle's CFSuntied blog. 

It can also be found here.