Search
Advanced Search
Metrics info
Average Rating (25 User Ratings)
    • Currently 1.5/5 Stars.
    See all categories
      • Currently 1.6/5 Stars.
      • Currently 1.5/5 Stars.
      • Currently 1.7/5 Stars.
    Rate This Article
More
Share this Article info
  • StumbleUpon Facebook Connotea CiteULike Bibliography

Open Access

Research Article

Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

0 responses
 Findings by Reno scientists confirmed by US government. Posted by peggy-sue on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:09 GMT
Most recent response on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:09 GMT
0 responses
 Challenge from the WPI Posted by peggy-sue on 14 Apr 2010 at 10:59 GMT
Most recent response on 14 Apr 2010 at 10:59 GMT
11 responses
 Authors Response Posted by Anthony_Cleare on 12 Jan 2010 at 19:55 GMT
Most recent response on 21 Jan 2010 at 02:08 GMT
11 responses
 Results uninterpretable Posted by DustyMiller on 06 Jan 2010 at 14:13 GMT
Most recent response on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:55 GMT
1 response
 Implicit Bias in the Patient Cohort Posted by TerryE on 10 Jan 2010 at 23:30 GMT
Most recent response on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:50 GMT
0 responses
 Possible missing comments Posted by PLoS_ONE_Group on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:49 GMT
Most recent response on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:49 GMT
0 responses
 Diagnostic Testing Posted by Balbuie on 11 Jan 2010 at 15:54 GMT
Most recent response on 11 Jan 2010 at 15:54 GMT
5 responses
 Thank you, Erlwein et al. Posted by Ed_D on 07 Jan 2010 at 21:15 GMT
Most recent response on 10 Jan 2010 at 22:34 GMT
0 responses
 Failure to Detect XMRV = Failure to Use Good Science Posted by APring on 10 Jan 2010 at 02:32 GMT
Most recent response on 10 Jan 2010 at 02:32 GMT
0 responses
 Verification of accuracy can be tested Posted by npatel on 09 Jan 2010 at 21:20 GMT
Most recent response on 09 Jan 2010 at 21:20 GMT
0 responses
 Lab Contamination Posted by Balbuie on 09 Jan 2010 at 17:54 GMT
Most recent response on 09 Jan 2010 at 17:54 GMT
0 responses
 Inaccuracy in Discussion Posted by Balbuie on 09 Jan 2010 at 17:16 GMT
Most recent response on 09 Jan 2010 at 17:16 GMT
0 responses
 Different XMRV sequences targeted for amplification Posted by MDMS on 08 Jan 2010 at 23:59 GMT
Most recent response on 08 Jan 2010 at 23:59 GMT
0 responses
 Patient Cohort Posted by Alice2010 on 07 Jan 2010 at 15:24 GMT
Most recent response on 07 Jan 2010 at 15:24 GMT
0 responses
 Why not a more substantial discussion on discrepant XMRV findings? Posted by JohnM on 07 Jan 2010 at 15:03 GMT
Most recent response on 07 Jan 2010 at 15:03 GMT
0 responses
 Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Posted by Herbiv4 on 07 Jan 2010 at 14:16 GMT
Most recent response on 07 Jan 2010 at 14:16 GMT
1 response
 Completely different cohort studied. NOT a replication study Posted by Science-Based on 07 Jan 2010 at 04:55 GMT
Most recent response on 07 Jan 2010 at 14:13 GMT
1 response
 Need for rigorous study and exacting protocols Posted by kelly on 07 Jan 2010 at 01:46 GMT
Most recent response on 07 Jan 2010 at 02:56 GMT
0 responses
 Reference is a prostate Cancer not CFS study Posted by tkindlon on 06 Jan 2010 at 18:38 GMT
Most recent response on 06 Jan 2010 at 18:38 GMT
Rate This Article
Please follow our guidelines for rating and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
  1. Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
  2. Unsupported assertions or statements
  3. Inflammatory or insulting language
Compose Your Annotation
 
Declare any competing interests.

Ratings can include the following markup tags:

Emphasis: ''italic''  '''bold'''  '''''bold italic'''''

Other: ^^superscript^^  ~~subscript~~

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.