Quick question
@Jonathan Edwards, would you not consider titers of 1:640 (the test's maximum) to Coxsackie B4 a strong sign of an active infection, especially with repeated testing? The lab interpretation instructions say that this should be considered "strong evidence" of recent or active infection, but I am not sure if there can be another explanation?
ME/CFS researchers who are not much enamored with the viral theory of ME/CFS, like Dr Robert Naviaux for example, suggest that these high antibody titers found in ME/CFS (and in autism, where high titers to measles virus are
found) are not due to an ongoing infection, but are posited to be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system, such that it pumps out high levels of antibodies in the absence of an infection.
Antibody testing is not direct evidence of infection, as it only measures the immune response to infection (an infection which could be hidden anywhere in the body); so antibody testing does not directly detect the infection itself. Whereas PCR testing directly detects the pathogen, by detecting its RNA or DNA.
In the case of herpesvirus infections in ME/CFS, you get these high titers in patients, and some patients seem to respond to antivirals, but the high titers are not direct evidence of infection. And when you perform PCR tests for herpesviruses in the blood, these are often negative in ME/CFS (but that could be because the herpesvirus infection is located hidden in the body tissues rather than in the blood). So we don't currently have much direct evidence for herpesvirus infection in ME/CFS.
By contrast, in enterovirus-associated ME/CFS, we not only get the high antibody titers (indirect evidence of infection), but also when you perform muscle, stomach or brain biopsies and test those with PCR, it comes also out positive (direct evidence of infection). And when you give enterovirus ME/CFS patients treatments that fight enterovirus, like interferon alpha, they often get a lot better along with a measurable decrease in enteroviral load (but unfortunately patients relapse some months later, as the enterovirus returns).
So as far as I can see, the evidence base for enterovirus in ME/CFS is stronger than the evidence base for herpesvirus in ME/CFS at this point.
Personally I have no problem that there are researchers pursuing non-viral theories of ME/CFS, and I think it's advantageous to do this, as it is never good to have all your eggs in one basket. But I certainly don't want to see the viral research forgotten, or put on the back-burner.