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.
Esther,
Have you read the full paper published in Science in it's entirety of the methods and results of Phase iii of the BWG?
In the science editorial, it said very plainly that all the labs were free to use whatever testing they thought would be most effective. It seems like a few patients now think otherwise, but as far as I can tell, it's just based on an internet rumour. Apparently the WPI had some problem with contamination during the testing period which caused them problems, but I've not seen any evidence that the BWG wanted them to using anything but the most reliable testing they had.
I don't think we'll be able to get to the bottom of this here, and I'm not too sure how useful it is to try to debate these matters,
but even if we're not going to get to the bottom of this, I am interested/confused by the claim that the BWG results have strengthened the WPI's position, when their testing was shown to be unreliable).
I don't think it's the BWG results that people are saying strengthens the WPI's position... It's the partial retraction of the Science paper...
But my comments were based on what I understood about the BWG before the results came out.
I thought that the methodology was a compromise, and that Judy could not do all aspects of it exactly the way she wanted.
Maybe the Science article meant that they could use 'any testing' within certain parameters...
You know how badly these types of things get reported.
I agree, but I still find it an interesting subject, so I enjoy discussing it.
The authors now say that VP62 was an artificial construct... It was not cloned from a full isolate... It was cloned from partial sequences that were stiched together in the lab (don't ask me how they do that!)... (apparently this was common knowledge, but I don't think that I knew this before.)
And they now say that VP62 was not present in the samples in the Science paper after all... The samples were contaminated by Silverman's positive control VP62 plasmids, and that's what he detected and sequenced in his lab...
So it seems that it was other MLV-related viruses (not VP62) that were present in the WPI's research...
The reason why this might strengthen the WPI's work is because it could explain why no one can find XMRV when looking for VP62. It just doesn't exist in nature, as far as we now know.
Using very low specificity in her tests, Mikovits has always found a diverse range of sequences, and not just VP62-like sequences.
This could also explain the discrepancy between Alter's work and Mikovits' work (i.e. possibly, there is no difference.)
But this does all seem like speculation at the moment... I feel that we are all out of the loop about it all, and don't really know what's going on.
If Mikovits and Alter and the prostate cancer scientists are only finding contamination, then there's a heck of a lot of contamination going around in the labs of the top scientists that they need to get to grips with.
It also seems that a new man-made retrovirus, with an affinity for human tissue, is on the loose, and could potentially contaminate medicine products and vaccines.
And it also seems that Mikovits may, at the very least, have found a biomarker. She says that it is very hard to contaminate your samples with anti-bodies.
So her antibody results in themselves seem like a very worthwhile research avenue to pursue even if the rest of it comes to nothing.
Just my thoughts.
It's possible, but it did say "All labs could use whatever assays they chose" - which is pretty forthright.
I know what you mean, but discussions like this can easily go wrong when we're all so personally involved. When some people are really hoping/expecting XMRV to lead to successful treatment, and I'm telling them that I think they're wrong, it's easy to feel like a bully crushing hope, instead of just someone laying out their own beliefs. Pleased to hear you're enjoying it (I find it knackering!).
At the moment, I'm going to be sceptical of any testing results that haven't held up under independent blinding - and that includes the antibody results. Maybe they will lead on to something, at some point, but maybe not. If anti-body testing is particularly reliable, then it would have been nice if that had been used under the independently blinded conditions of the BWG.
edit: We've still got the Lipkin study coming. The greater numbers there meaning that there can be no concern about crazy twists of fate or bizarre coincidences, but it would be pretty amazing if the results claimed in the Science paper were replicable given the results we now have from the independently blinded BWG.
Sorry you not enjoying it...
I really hope that Lipkin sets it up such that people cannot find holes in it.
But Singh has detected XMRV in about 5% of the normal population in her prostate cancer (tissue) study, and 0% of the normal population in her ME (blood) study.
So there's a discrepancy in her conclusions based on the two studies.
Which study should we believe? Or should we believe both of them? (i.e. that she can detect the virus in tissue, but not in blood.)
She hasn't withdrawn her prostate cancer study, so i assume that she believes that it is still valid. It validates the WPI's work, in so much as they both detected the virus in roughly the same proportion of the healthy population.
Switzer, of the CDC, also says that he can detect XMRV in tissue but not in blood.
I totally understand why people have had enough of hearing about XMRV.
But the multiple research findings haven't been explained yet.
It's normal for this sort of research to take a very long time.
I wonder what happened to Tate's announcement..
This doc in New Zealand I think who has a daughter with ME/CFS and was about to publish some breakthrough retroviral related stuff I think - this was gathered from a radio interview posted on this forum some time ago.