The above abstract comes to the conclusion that "The findings of this study have confirmed previous reports supporting an association between MS and HHV-6, and suggest a role for this human herpesvirus in the pathogenesis of MS. This study does not support the theory of an association between MS and HHV-7, HHV-8 and Chlamydia pneumoniae. " end quote.
So we have a researcher that says that CPn is not there. Sounds really certain, but is it? Has it occurred to everyone that there is some problem with this kind of research? Why is it that half the time the researcher in question supports the conclusion that CPn is in the brain and half the time they do not? If you think one group is "right" then is the other group lying? Are the VU and FSU people simply duping the unsuspecting public into believeing that CPn is at fault when it's not, their research offering that in some cases near 100% of people tested with MS have CPn?
The difference is in the lab test. This is a very dicey kind of work. This is not people culturing something. You have to find a small segment of DNA and then put it through a polymerase chain reaction, which causes the DNA to multiply so you have an amount adequate to sample and identify in the end. Not all labs use the same segment of DNA and proprietary issues may influence the segment used. At VU they have concordance with their work, in other words if they split the samples, there is concordance and the positive samples are positive and the negative samples are negative. This suggests that the method they use is accurate.
There is a paper describing the different labs and different types of PCR and results here. http://www.CPn Help.org/pdfs/cpncsfofMS.pdf
In a situation like this, it is more likely that the person finding "nothing" is making a mistake than the one finding the bacteria and having concordance. This won't be the last research to come out like this. Look at the list of researchers ( many, not just Wheldon and VU) on CPn Help.org in the physicians page and in the general research page. This is not one university and one lone guy in the UK seeing this and trying to make a name for themselves. It's many researchers everywhere, in many settings. If you look on pubmed then roughly half of the research finds that CPn is there or may be there. half the time, often because they did antibody tests a completely useless approach for CPn (someone posted one of those here...) they find no correlation.
This is why this is empirical treatment. It is not "known". No one study by itself is "proof" and the researchers cannot even decide if this way of testing (DNA chain) is best or if that way is. Clearly Sarah has been positively impacted by abx. Her MRI and functional recovery is clearly brought about by abx. Lifeontheice, Gibbledegook, Katman Colin LJM and others here have been positively impacted. For them CPn was an issue. The MS lesion project indicates there are 4 types of lesion. It appears some of us have CPn.
In the end each person is a study of one. Does this treatment, or any other , work on YOU. Copaxone is OK for me. My friend had a terrible time with it. LDN did nothing at all for me. In fact I lost more ground this year on LDN than I ever have. Ever. I have the first blakc hole in my MRI that I've ever had. And this happened on the medicine that supposedly Dr Bihari had 400 MS patints on with no one ever progressing. Yet Sammyjo (ldners.org) is nearly healed on the stuff, and she happens to live near me so I have eaten dinner with her. She really CAN walk. And she was in a wheelchair. Her story is 100% true. She tried it and it worked, I tried it and it didn't. If the NMSS comes out and says good news LDN works, I will not suddenly be healed by it. It doesn't work for me. I've done my study of one and it's a "no". In 100% of the Marie population n=1 LDn does not work.
I've now started my study of one on abx. There's plenty of research to support the approach. Studies like the above are only business as usual.
That's why this is empirical. You test it on yourself if you are a good candidate. I am becasue I have many other signs of CPn problems like raynaud's phenomenon, seronegative arthritis, sciatica, myofascial trigger points, asthma. The study of how it works on me is the only one that matters.