Article: From the PCR Side: the Cooperative Diagnostics XMRV Interview with Dr. Brent Satterfield

Article: From the PCR Side: the Cooperative Diagnostics XMRV Interview with Dr. Brent

You can view the page at http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?376-From-the-PCR-Side-the-Cooperative-Diagnostics-XMRV-CFS-ME-CFS-Interview-with-Dr.-Brent-Satterfield

 

I think Satterfield thinks that the PCR community has covered the most of the bases or contingencies, I guess you would say, now -too many to expect that XMRV is there and they can't find it.......and Harvey and Lo clearly think they haven't and that there are still little differences that could have caused the virus to evade detection......

Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Cort.

Of course there is XMRV AND the MLV's...lots of interesting stuff.

Mikovits was just at Univ of Alberta training them in how to find it in their new lab - so they are going to be important players in all this as well.

....the next couple months are going to be fascinating.

Yes it is, it's going to be very very interesting.

 

Wow! Because no one has been unable to replicate WPI's finding, and because even WPI cant find XMRV via PCR anymore, it really does make you wonder. What got me the most was that Satterfield, as many others in the field, have friends/relatives with this illness. They have direct contact with the clinical aspects and the heartbreak of CFS. They WANT to find a cause as much as Whittemore and Mikovits.

If not XMRV, then it IS something, most likely retroviral, in my humble opinion, as having experienced the flu everyday for 23 years, I know it is not going away...it is here to stay.

So, whatever comes of this, CFS is on the map!

Thanks Cort for being objective and continuing to bring in all sides of the issue. We just need the truth.

Donna

 

Ah, and furthermore, Ive thrown so much money at this illness, who cares about the $400??? It's a drop in the bucket of 23 years of thowing away money on stupider things Ive done to get well...like seeing psychics for their diagnosis!!!

Donna

 

Ah, and furthermore, Ive thrown so much money at this illness, who cares about the $400??? It's a drop in the bucket of 23 years of thowing away money on stupider things Ive done to get well...like seeing psychics for their diagnosis!!!

Donna

It 's amazing how far we will go

Yes, a drop in the bucket overall....

 

Brilliant observation Caroline!

I think Alters comments recently, and the NIH CDCs conflicting findings make this a possibllitie. That at first might have looked unlikely. But now im not so sure. Alters finding positives, sorry folks the CDC are not. And if Alter is suffering from contamination. Strangely its not giving the CDC false positives. because they tested the same APPARENTLY CONTAMINATED SAMPLES Naada

 

I think Alters comments recently, and the NIH CDCs conflicting findings make this a possibllitie. That at first might have looked unlikely. But now im not so sure. Alters finding positives, sorry folks the CDC are not. And if Alter is suffering from contamination. Strangely its not giving the CDC false positives. because they tested the same APPARENTLY CONTAMINATED SAMPLES Naada

Any contamination can be introduced at any stage during the processing and testing, so it could be the case that the CDC patient blood samples are not contaminated, but that Lo is detecting contamination that was introduced during his testing. Or he could in theory be reading false positives.

 

Here's the quote about the coded samples from the CDC:

[97.30]

Lo:

"They [the CDC] had a negative one [sample] and then send to us to test it.

And I see, for the CDC group of patients, most of them are negative in our hands, [indiscernible],

But the interesting part; and obviously we don't want to get into the too complicated thing;

And while they kick in [?], the so called negative control from a single patient, and repeated, I forgot, 15 times, 10 times, or something;

And that particular sample; we repeatedly identified as positive.

But that's a coded sample; you know, we did not know that that particular one is a, repeat, coded negative control,

and that one is positive."



It is difficult to understand all of Lo's speech in this section of the video, but it does suggest that there were other negative control samples that Lo consistently tested as negative, and that he consistently and repeatedly tested the one negative control as positive.

 

Any contamination can be introduced at any stage during the processing and testing, so it could be the case that the CDC patient blood samples are not contaminated, but that Lo is detecting contamination that was introduced during his testing. Or he could in theory be reading false positives.

Hi Bob i think your missing the point because im trying to prove the CDC are falsly producing negative results. otherwise the positives that Alter are detecting ( which are being tested as negative by the CDC ) would likely be contamination producing a false positive. and if thats the case, im thinking of the two deemed positives from Alter being sent to the CDC who then tested them as negative. for while its true the negative control from the CDC could have got contaminated on route to Alter, to produce the false positive. Ive never heard of a contaminated sample ( the two positives sent to the CDC by Alter ) becoming CLEAN on route to the CDC. the point is if the result by Alter on those two positives was due to contamination. Then the CDC should have detected them as false positives JUST LIKE ALTER.. You see the point ? they didnt. they tested them as negative, which suggests two things 1 Alters samples were not contaminated and they was true positives. 2 the CDC are failing to detect actual positive samples, that are likely not contaminated. so while the negative sample from the CDC could have got contaminated on route to Alter. the two positives sent by Alter to the CDC could not clean themselves of contamination on route to them. which as stated leads to the two conclusions above., Though of course im baseing this on the fact that false positives are being produced by contamination. Which i think most would agree is the most likely scenario for producing false positives

 

Hi Bob i think your missing the point because im trying to prove the CDC are falsly producing negative results. otherwise the positives that Alter are detecting ( which are being tested as negative by the CDC ) would likely be contamination producing a false positive. and if thats the case, im thinking of the two deemed positives from Alter being sent to the CDC who then tested them as negative. for while its true the negative control from the CDC could have got contaminated on route to Alter, to produce the false positive. Ive never heard of a contaminated sample ( the two positives sent to the CDC by Alter ) becoming CLEAN on route to the CDC. the point is if the result by Alter on those two positives was due to contamination. Then the CDC should have detected them as false positives JUST LIKE ALTER.. You see the point ? they didnt. they tested them as negative, which suggests two things 1 Alters samples were not contaminated and they was true positives. 2 the CDC are failing to detect actual positive samples, that are likely not contaminated. so while the negative sample from the CDC could have got contaminated on route to Alter. the two positives sent by Alter to the CDC could not clean themselves of contamination on route to them. which as stated leads to the two conclusions above., Though of course im baseing this on the fact that false positives are being produced by contamination. Which i think most would agree is the most likely scenario for producing false positives

Hi free at last,
I understand the point you are making, but my point was that if any potential contamination is introduced at the testing stage, then Alter and Lo could have sent uncontaminated (negative) samples to the CDC.
Also, the samples from the CDC could have been negative for PMRVs, but ALter and Lo could, in theory, have introduced the contamination during the testing stage.
So, responding to your words, the two positives from Alter to the CDC could actually have cleaned themselves of contamination on route (or rather, the samples weren't contaminated in the first place, but the contamination was introduced at the testing stage).
Personally, I don't think that this is the case, but I'm just explaining how this could happen.

The fact that Lo consistently tested the blinded negative control sample as positive (and it seems that he consistently tested the other negative controls as negative), gives him a very strong case. If he can repeat that consistency during the Lipkin study, then that will be all the positive evidence that Lipkin needs.

 

That Strikes me as really rather unlikely Bob, as most people would argue false positives are most often produced from contamination. as the two samples were already deemed postive by Alter prior to sending to the CDC then if false positives are most often detected because of contamination. The fact That Alter sent TWO POSITIVES to the CDC suggests that he had contaminated them early on the process. So infact they could not clean themselves. Your assuming the false positive might arise not from contamination. but this is most often the case. Its certainly the number 1 worry by all researche Labs
There is one way i could be wrong about this, if the two samples that were sent to the CDC were not the actual samples tested by Alter . But i know nothing of how this works ?

 

That Strikes me as really rather unlikely Bob, as most people would argue false positives are most often produced from contamination. as the two samples were already deemed postive by Alter prior to sending to the CDC then if false positives are most often detected because of contamination. The fact That Alter sent TWO POSITIVES to the CDC suggests that he had contaminated them early on the process. So infact they could not clean themselves. Your assuming the false positive might arise not from contamination. but this is most often the case. Its certainly the number 1 worry by all researche Labs
There is one way i could be wrong about this, if the two samples that were sent to the CDC were not the actual samples tested by Alter . But i know nothing of how this works ?

If contamination is a factor, then the samples sent from Harvey/Lo to the CDC might not have been contaminated, if the contamination was introduced at the testing stage.

I believe that the original samples would be kept separate from the testing stage, and so the original patient samples can't become contaminated if the contamination is introduced at the testing stage. (They separate the original samples into a number of separate phials, before doing any work with them, and only work on one phial at a time.)

Does that make sense? I don't know if i'm explaining it well.

 

edit: I was asked to remove this as it might hinder publication.

 

If that's what they're waiting to see, I guess we can expect them to come around soon: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,6410.msg72469/boardseen.html#new

That would be big news....

 

XMRV & AMPLIGEN, Hunter-Hopkins ME-letter March 2011

I have confirmed that the XMRV genomes detected had flanking sequences confirming that they were integrated into patient DNA and the contamination theory is invalidated.

Are we certain about this information?

Here's the letter:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/hunte...ispherx-biopharma-investiga/10150166713330325

And here's the relevant section:

Urnovitz went on to explain that when apoptosis occurs, chimeras are spilled into the blood stream and can be extracted easily by his laboratory. When his lab examined the genomes of persons with CFS they found chimeras made up of XMRV genes (but oddly missing their LTR regions).

http://www.facebook.com/notes/hunte...ispherx-biopharma-investiga/10150166713330325

 

Here's a post with more information. It is very new technology but Urnovitz says XMRV is there and it looks like he and Hemispherx have filed a patent application for finding it in CFS.

http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?10733-Lapp-Reports-XMRV-is-Found-in-CFS-Using-Genome-Detection-Technology-Ampligen-News

 

Thank you for all the transcriptions, Bob.
I agree with your observation, Caroline!
It sounds like Dr. Satterfield isn't really good at thinking outside his particular box.
I get the feeling that the people who will figure out XMRV will think outside the box and be very, very persistent.

 

I think if XMRV works out it will surprise some people - particularly researchers focused on PCR. I think they think they've kind of figured it out - so yes, I agree it will take some thinking outside of the box and alot of persistence.