Study from the Netherlands:
CFS/ME patients plus age/sex/neighborhood matched controls (patients brought in friends that lived in the same area– environment might play a role).
32 ME/CFS patients
0 XMRV present in PBMC, using reagents verified in this paper (integrase) and this paper (gag- the same ones WPI used).
A limitation of our study is that the numbers of patients and controls in our study were relatively small. Based on these low numbers, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is a prevalence of 9% for the patient group and 7% for the control group, as calculated according to Eypasch et al (by the formula p=3/n).18 Although we cannot formally rule out a role of XMRV, our data cast doubt on the claim that this virus is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome in the majority of patients…
… Technical aspects are unlikely to explain the difference in XMRV positivity rate between our data and their data…
… It is possible that the study of Lombardi et al has unravelled the viral cause of the chronic fatigue syndrome outbreak, but it seems unlikely that their study demonstrates a viral association for sporadic chronic fatigue syndrome cases, such as those we tested, or represents the majority of patients.
Now, this paper demonstrates the scientifically acceptable, normal way scientists bitch-slap one another (SPOILER: It doesnt involve calling other scientists frauds):
In conclusion, we found no evidence for a role of XMRV in the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome in Dutch patients. Over the past decades we have seen a series of papers prematurely claiming the discovery of the microbial cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. Regrettably, thus far none of these claims has been substantiated.
Still no XMRV in Europe.