Given Doubt Cast on CFS-XMRV Link, What About Related Research? (Alter comment)

[Jemal]

New article by Amy Dockser Marcus. It has a comment from Alter.

Through an NIH spokesperson, Alter replies that the PNAS paper did not link XMRV to chronic fatigue syndrome but rather the larger family of polytropic murine leukemia viruses to which XMRV belongs. The paper never reported finding XMRV itself. Thus the finding that XMRV may be a contaminant traced to cancer cells in mice does not pertain to the finding published in PNAS, Alter says.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/06...on-cfs-xmrv-link-what-about-related-research/

So Alter is sure that even if the contaministst blow the WPI out of the water, his study still stands. That's good to know, we have a fall back scenario (though I still believe in the WPI results).

 

[floydguy]

New article by Amy Dockser Marcus. It has a comment from Alter.



http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/06...on-cfs-xmrv-link-what-about-related-research/

So Alter is sure that even if the contaministst blow the WPI out of the water, his study still stands. That's good to know, we have a fall back scenario (though I still believe in the WPI results).

Yes, there is a chance that the baby won't be thrown out with the bathwater. This is encouraging.

 

[eric_s]

But to be honest, if the WPI really had been wrong (what i don't believe), how big is the chance that there is no XMRV but those other variants of HGRVs in people? That seems a bit unlikely. I think either all of them are right or all of them are wrong.

Edit: But thanks for the good find. And i really hope Alter has some friends in the NIH that will be able to take care of the NCI situation a bit.

 

[Jemal]

Yes, I think the WPI and Lo/Alter study complement each other. I agree it's unlikely that the WPI is wrong and Lo/Alter are right.
In the end I want a treatment though, so I don't care who is right, as long as it delivers something.

 

[justinreilly]

New article by Amy Dockser Marcus. It has a comment from Alter.



http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/06...on-cfs-xmrv-link-what-about-related-research/

So Alter is sure that even if the contaministst blow the WPI out of the water, his study still stands. That's good to know, we have a fall back scenario (though I still believe in the WPI results).

That is good news. So is noone trying to replicate or confirm Lo and Alter? And what's their excuse for not trying/ignoring it? Maybe WPI could try to replicate Lo and Alter. WPI is now saying they are finding a family of viruses- HGRVs, not just XMRV. Maybe they can't get the money.

 

[Jemal]

That is good news. So is noone trying to replicate or confirm Lo and Alter? And what's their excuse for not trying/ignoring it? Maybe WPI could try to replicate Lo and Alter. WPI is now saying they are finding a family of viruses- HGRVs, not just XMRV. Maybe they can't get the money.

Since posting this, someone pointed me to a study that very recently was published and that does address the Lo/Alter study. That particular study doesn't definitely say Lo/Alter are also detecting contamination, but they say it's a possibility and they warn that reagants might be contaminated:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0019953

Alter still sounds very sure of himself, though.

As far as I know of, there have been no negative replication studies for Lo/Alter. Though Hanson/Bell have now also reported finding MLV's similar to Lo/Alter, I think they originally set out to reproduce the WPI results. Which I guess they also did, as Alter once stated the Lo/Alter study was validation for the WPI study.

What the WPI, Lo/Alter and Hanson/Bell are detecting might be different strains of the same virus. Like there is HIV-1, HIV-2, Hepatitis a, Hepatitis b, Hepatitis c, etc.

 

[Bob]

Just for clarity about that paper that you've linked to Jemal, here's what jace had to say about it on another thread:

Here is another quote from that paper,

We do not believe that our observations serve to indicate that XMRV/pMLV sequences detected ex vivo in human materials inevitably will have come from the amplification reagents. Nor for that matter can we explain how in some studies there have been very significant differences between the detection rates in cases and comparator groups.

The authors? Philip W. Tuke, Kate I. Tettmar, Asif Tamuri, Jonathan P. Stoye, Richard S. Tedder

 

[markmc20001]

little tid bit of interesting info from the article

"Since PNAS published the paper, the journal has received a half-dozen papers from other authors documenting no correlation between XMRV and CFS but we declined to publish all of them because they are not substantial additions to the literature, just more of the same, says Schekman."

 

[Waverunner]

In the end I want a treatment though, so I don't care who is right, as long as it delivers something.

Hi Jemal,

I agree to 100%.

 

[eric_s]

Yes, but if the people who actually are right are "proven wrong", then it might take a lot longer to get that treatment. And also, if the WPI really are correct, i don't want any of the money for my future treatments to go to those *%&%&s, because they destroyed the WPI in the course of all of this. Not that i see this happening in the near future, but it might be a possibility. I think if we ever get out of this mess we're in at the moment, where it's very hard to see clearly, we should look back and then not forget who our friends are and who are not.

 

[Jemal]

Yes, but if the people who actually are right are "proven wrong", then it might take a lot longer to get that treatment. And also, if the WPI really are correct, i don't want any of the money for my future treatments to go to those *%&%&s, because they destroyed the WPI in the course of all of this. Not that i see this happening in the near future, but it might be a possibility. I think if we ever get out of this mess we're in at the moment, where it's very hard to see clearly, we should look back and then not forget who our friends are and who are not.

I agree Eric.