sensing progress
Senior Member
- Messages
- 296
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
do we know who paid for the Singh/et al study? Was it University of Utah?
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
conspiracy theory, is Singh getting payed off. Its just an updated version of oslers web, same crap different decade. cheers!!!
I am XMRV + by culture (2010, VIPdx) and by PCR STOMACH BIOPSY (Redlabs 2011).
I am following GcMAF, and I AM IMPROVING plausibly. The progress is being more noticeable everyday, especially after the 10-11 injection (I have been given 15 injections so far, and I am supposed to reach the maximum improvement after the 30th +-, according to my genetics.
Have PWCs improved with ARVs? Well, initially some, but most of them relapsed.
But, is people improving with GcMAF, that has shown to eradicate HIV in 18 weeks in non-AIDS patients? YES, and the results are quite impressive for many.
Still doesn't explain why Mikovits got 97% positives in cfs patients and only 4% positive in healthy blood samples.
The question remains how mouse DNA in the Taq polymerase could lead to a disproportionate number of positives in patients versus controls in the two studies linking XMRV to CFS. It is possible, as has been suggested before (27), that patient samples were handled more than control samples and thus had a higher likelihood of contamination. In our study, both patient and control samples were handled in the same manner with the same frequency, in a blinded manner.
And I remember Judy Mikovits saying early on that many of the samples were negative the first time they tested them, so they tested them again and then they were positive, especially if they tested them by culture.Because the viral replication assay consists of passaging cells inoculated with patient samples and controls inoculated with infectious XMRV, every week for 6-8 weeks, this assay is especially vulnerable to contamination.
I am XMRV + by culture (2010, VIPdx) and by PCR STOMACH BIOPSY (Redlabs 2011).
I am following GcMAF, and I AM IMPROVING plausibly.
...
Then, what am I fighting with GcMAF, that is improving my CFS so obviously?
There is just no way Singh is part of an anti-CFS conspiracy, she is diminishing her own research by this finding, you don't do that if you are an unethical person, or someone who would let themselves be paid off. And remember, Dr Bateman was part of this study, two conspirators like that? Not likely. This was simply a real scientific result and they drew what to them was a logical conclusions.
Hi Sergio, this is great news that GcMAF is helping. IF GcMAF can reactivate your macrophages (WBCs), then of course any infection will be better handled, viral, bacterial, fungi, even cancer cells. So I don't think your improvement says anything necessarily about XMRV, but it does say your CFS involves immune dysregulation. Hope the improvement continues!
I am still studying the oi/pots, that has been the hardest symptom to improve on, and am considering the g-suit idea.
Why can we not get an EXACT replication study done?
Why oh why oh why oh why oh why doesn't somebody do an actual replication study?
How is this not an attempted replication study? They attempted to replicate the findings of both the Lo and Lombardi studies, they even tested some of the WPI patients.
It's an attempt at validation of Lombardi results but it is not a replication. To do that one would have to follow the Lombardi protocol precisely
But I am improving "just" treating infections with the best possible approach, i.e, our own immune system.
What does Professor Racaniello know that we don't?
-------------------------
CreekFeet Kassy Fatooh
@ @profvrr Thx but now all seem equally suspect: WPI CC NIH &FDA media, Singh assays; who will prove conclusively one or another did it right?
12 hours ago
profvrr Vincent Racaniello
@ @CreekFeet Stay tuned, there is more to come in the next weeks.
11 hours ago
-------------------------
So more news is coming soon? Could be negative or positive of course...
Vincent Racaniello, a Columbia University virologist who wrote about todays study on his blog, tells us that to perform antibody tests, proteins from the virus are used. He says that other viruses have proteins that are highly related to XMRV proteins. If the patients then test positive for antibodies, it looks like they have antibodies to XMRV but they are not specific to that virus."
I think they tested 14 samples from persons the WPI found positive and 2 of them were in Lomardi et al. It's better you check that again before believing me, but i think it was that way.WHY GcMAF is working following the same pattern as in HIV infected patients?[/B]
WHY is this not studied further?
WHY is it known that XMRV is present in tissues, and yet, studies do not look in tissues, instead of in blood?
WHY dont we have a 100% replication study of the 2 positive studies?
WHY did they only test for 14 samples of the Science study, out of which only TWO were positive?
If XMRV or related MLVs are out there (I dont think this is questionable), WHY this study did not find even 1 positive? By chance, they shouldve.