1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Did You Have Yourself a Crashy Little Christmas?
Jody Smith may have dodged a holiday bullet this year. She's hoping. Only time will tell. How did you fare?
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Article: Four Viruses! Alter Paper Confirms Retroviral Findings in CFS

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, Aug 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    I believe you just called Weesely and White brilliant scientists!


    I would like to point out, yet again, for something like the 100th time, that I have not attacked Cort. I have attempted to explain why people are frustrated with him. Given the large number of people who have left this forum because of this frustration, I would think he, and you, would be interested in understanding why. Instead of reacting to what my comment was (an explanation), a bunch of people reacted, for pages and pages, to what it was not (an accusation of sexism) which, as anyone would have done in light of a similar misrepresentation, I contested. I was then accused of dragging it out. It was not me who dragged it out, it was the people who kept misrepresenting what I said and forcing me to repeat myself.

    As for the comment about a swarm of men, they all, except one, have male usernames, so unless these are false identities these are men. I did not say they were sexist either this is simply a fact.

    If you would like to accuse me of not backing up my comments, fine, I was in fact at the beginning doing my best to keep my responses brief and get back on topic. However you can not accuse me of this without providing any backup of your own. Find me Cort's supportive comments for Mikovits (the WPI does not count). Deny and prove that he did not favour Racy's responses over hers (despite the fact that he was ill-informed, and it was her science they were discussing) when he interviewed the two of them. Explain to me why he chose to feature, and thus to propagate Trine Tsouderos's vitrolic attack on Mikovits through this site, if not to help Trine undermine her: Is he truly not aware of that woman's long, dubious history on autism coverage and anything that even remotely resembles validation of the claim by some parents that their kids got sick after vaccines?

    And when you are done with that, find me an article of his where he opens the CAA up for any sort of questioning.
     
  2. pictureofhealth

    pictureofhealth XMRV - L'Agent du Jour

    Messages:
    534
    Likes:
    1
    Europe

    It has been a very trying and disconcerting week for us in some ways.

    I think we can all agree what most of us were expecting to see in the Alter/Lo report, namely:

    Yes, we also found XMRV (pure and simple), yes, we confirm the WPI's findings they were right all along, yes its a retrovirus pure and simple, yes its in the blood supply, yes, this is what is causing these patients to be so ill and yes this is quite clearly a biomedical illness no doubt about it.

    ie Good clean clear statements - roll in the big bucks and anti retrovirals ...

    But that is not exactly what we were given - although in a way we were - although it came with a lot of additional brain-addling, MLV, scientific jargon, semantics, malarky.

    Mark is right in my view, in that it seems to be what we ordered, but upon closer inspection isn't entirely what we ordered, so we have got what we wanted, but in a confusing way that isn't entirely satisfying, when it could all have been so much more simple.
    This has caused predictably, exactly this kind of debate (not just amongst ourselves but the other scientists too) and effectively takes the extreme heat off the big organisations - just for the moment anyway- until they find a way to standardise testing procedures, clean up the blood supply, and work out their long term public policy and how they are going to categorise this illness from now on - no small task.

    I think also Mark's 'shorthand' comment is spot on. I've seen numerous reports - medical and media - referring to 'viruses' as shorthand for 'retroviruses'. HIV for eg is also a retrovirus, but it only gets a 'V' for virus, as mentioned above.

    Also, yes, we are still only largely dealing with the published information made available to us, pieces of the puzzle. The WPI clearly have a few more pieces in hand that they have not yet discussed/published and these will hopefully bring the desired illumination (or maybe muddy the puddle further!)

    Anyway, the expectation is, more of these pieces will hopefully be revealed in just 9 days time - and counting - at the Bethesda XMRV Conference.

    Sorry - that would be the "XMRV and MLV related-viruses Conference". :eek:
     
  3. valentinelynx

    valentinelynx Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    Likes:
    68
    Tucson
    Maybe y'all could take this argument off the public forum, e-mail privately back and forth or something? I'm looking for useful, hopefully uplifting information about my illness, and the interpersonal vitriol is stressing me and making me feel worse. Surely the crimes of simplification and misinterpretation committed in the press far outweigh what you are arguing about here?

    Please? :worried:
     
  4. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    I see you're still pumping out the falsehoods thick and fast, so I'll make this the last batch I'll respond to for now.
    As always, you exaggerate everything into a falsehood - "refusal to use Mikovits' word as a credible source" - refusal? - I don't even know but knowing your pattern my guess is because there wasn't a Mikovits quote in the article, maybe?

    Pure insanity. "Four viruses?" is now a factual error. Unbelievable.

    "When we speak of them", "we still understand" all the members of these families to be a single virus. Even though they aren't. This is your argument? That it is "a factual error" to use the word "viruses" here because most people don't even know or care that HIV is a family of viruses?


    "4 viruses?"

    "Inaccurate and misleading?"

    For introducing the issues discussed in depth in the article, by posing the question "4 viruses?" about the 4 viruses described in the papers?

    Inaccurate, because the "4 viruses" bit doesn't expand to "a family of 4 gammaretroviruses" ?

    Misleading, because the non-scientific reader prefers to call this family one virus? Even at a point in time when its latest proposed name has only recently been unofficially leaked?

    Ah no, but I get it. It's a subtlety of language, a PR thing - Cort is failing to do the optimal advertising job to the man in the street reading Phoenix Rising to help him decide whether this virus really causes CFS; in the blogosphere his mention of these other 3 viruses is spreading doubt in people's minds...

    Yeah, damn that Cort. What has he ever done to help publicise XMRV, or the WPI, or ME/CFS? A paltry contribution compared to your own, I'm sure.
     
  5. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    Ha!! :D So true.
     
  6. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    I would be glad to. However as I have been falsely accused of saying things I did not say in public, my refutation of these claims would serve no purpose in private.
     
  7. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes:
    594
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1007944107.full.pdf html

    May I point to the editorial by Valerie Courgnauda, Jean-Luc Battinia, Marc Sitbona, and Andrew L. Mason

    In Fig 1 XMRV is depicted as a hybride.

    They write: Indeed, XMRV genomes (1, 2) are actually hybrids between polytropic endogenous MLV sequences for their 5′ half up to approximately the middle of pol and xenotropic MLV for their 3′ half that harbors env. The glycogag leader of XMRV matches 100% of a polytropic endogenous sequence of the 129 1/SvJ laboratory mouse strain (accession no. AAHY01591888.1), a commonly used strain for gene knock-outs in embryonic stem cells. However, the glycogag/gag sequences reported by Lo et al. (6) best match endogenous polytropic sequences of the C57BL/6J laboratory strain of Mus musculus, with 99% nucleotide homology, and the env sequences share 97% homology with similar endogenous polytropic MLV and mink cell focus-forming viruses. Env cross-dressing between different MLV, known as pseudotyping, is a common feature in dually infected hosts (19),allowing MLV to extend their original tropism. Indeed, the multiple origins of these xenotropic sequences, the hybrid nature of the XMRV genome, and the occlusion of the otherwise necessary glycogag ORF underscore the potential complementation and recombinational events that may lead to their transmission into humans.

    The current data suggest that a variety of xenotropic and polytropic MLV can be found in North Americans with and without disease. To add to this bewilderment, it is likely that more than one environmental agent impacts on the development of both CFS and prostate cancer.
     
  8. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    Hah! Well obviously not deliberately.


    So whereas Cort, when he expresses frustration with Dr Mikovits' PR in an article, is "attacking" her,
    you, when you come on to his forum to explain the detail of why people are frustrated by Cort are not "attacking" him.

    If you attempted to explain why people are frustrated with Cort, you succeeding only in explaining to me why people are frustrated with you.

    I won't be digging around for all these counter-examples to your false premises; in fact the onus remains on you to do the reverse. Come up with legitimate examples of Cort's supposed attacks on the WPI etc - better quality examples than the manipulative use of the words "4 viruses" please - and there would be a case to answer. "You have done so numerous times" I'm sure you'll reply - but sadly not once has one of these examples been convincing of anything other than your own misunderstanding.
     
  9. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    No you haven't, and you provide no evidence.
     
  10. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    The evidence on both counts is all over this forum, and this thread. But if you cannot be bothered to prove your point, you cannot blame me for not wanting to spend hours digging up all of the proof for mine. I only take this argument as seriously as you do, which is to say, not very seriously at all. Ask yourself if it was me who blew my comments out of proportion and turned them into something else, or if it was the posse of attack characters that seem to pop out all the time here.

    The only person whose points against mine were the least bit considered was Dolphin, but at the end with the McCarthyism comment he totally lost me.

    I cry for a world that is so black and white that we cannot acknowledge that sexism is part of all of our behaviour, and that it hurts people. I cry for a world where it is not possible to talk about, and therefore hope to address the patterns of behaviour where it is represented.
     
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,872
    Likes:
    6,169
    It means that it makes a big statement about how different the cohorts are. Lo/Alter find 85% (really 86% but let's not quibble) in the Komaroff et al samples but 0% in the CDC samples - suggests the CDC are picking different sorts of "CFS" patients.
     
  12. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,872
    Likes:
    6,169
    I'm afraid I wrote to him again and said:
    so I don't want to write to him again.

    I think my initial question was quite straightforward - see response above:
     
  13. mentalist

    mentalist

    Messages:
    7
    Likes:
    0
    Thank you for this brilliant paper.
     
  14. SironaL

    SironaL

    Messages:
    5
    Likes:
    0
    Leuven, Belgium
    I've written a post elsewhere on this forum about the possibility that other factors have to bring down our immune systems to enable XMRV (or closely related MLV-related viruses) to infect en replicate in humans. After infection has firmly settled within the host, this virus could be able to cause immune dysfunction on its own, without the initial (environmental?) factors (which could also include infections with other pathogens that temporarily disable the immune system from clearing MLV-related viruses)
    http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...Dr.-Alter-Out!&p=117077&viewfull=1#post117077
     
  15. Sunshine

    Sunshine Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes:
    2
    UK
    CDC's 0% study of XMRV in CFS was designed to fail, the CAA agree also. It's invalid.

    Hi Dolphin. Now about the negative CDC XMRV paper, anyone who has read it and analyzed it knows it's a joke. I can see you haven't read it or you'd know. Their test didn't work. They found zero percent in non CFS as well as CFS. A bizarre finding as other XMRV studies around the world have always found XMRV in healthy controls, irrespective of CFS.

    But for today, lets stick to XMRV in CFS..........

    If I am trying to detect XMRV in a certain group of sick people (CFS), and someone asks me, can you prove your test is actually capable of detecting XMRV *at all*, and my answer is no. What does this mean? It means my test does not work. The CDC could not detect XMRV *at all*! This makes me a poor scientist who doesn't follow basic protocols. We'll let that slide and really I should not bother to be involved in something as important as a severe chronic disease as it's too dangerous for sufferers if I screw my work up.

    In addition what if I also then refuse to use XMRV+ control sample from CFS patients that is proven to be there (sent from WPI to CDC), and still claim I cannot detect XMRV in my CFS patients despite knowing my test doesn't work as the positive spiked XMRV sample sent from the WPI was refused to be used.

    Then we're in a whole new ball game now. Then I am a fraud if I don't make this information public. The CDC did not make this information public. Finally, what if I then go and print my 0% finding of XMRV in a journal when millions of people are waiting for medical help, fully aware that I don't know what I'm doing and my work is going to harm CFS patients globally. Then I am corrupt and a liar.

    The CDC has done all those things in their CFS sample. But wait, I could be biased here and be talking garbage because I have an agenda. Lets hear from someone who knows way more than me....

    The CAA's scientific director, Suzanne Vernon wrote an article trashing the CDC 0% finding of XMRV in CFS. I suggest you read it as otherwise you are falling for the assumption that the CDC assay was capable of detecting XMRV *at all* which they never proved, never mind finding XMRV in CFS patients! Meaning the CDC 0% finding in CFS was irrelevent. Same goes for the other studies that found no XMRV in CFS. All of this science is meaningless if I cannot show first of all I know what I am comparing my findings against. To do this I need a known positive sample of XMRV+ in CFS. The CDC refused the offer of that. No explanation but needing the study to fail, would be the reason.

    Check this out........

    Blood from a Stone
    http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp

    If you don't believe the CFIDS Association of America's scientific director this is your choice, I'm not forcing you. Just trying to give you a heads up the CDC's XMRV study of CFS patients was worthless and shouldn't be taken seriously.
     
  16. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    [​IMG] Originally Posted by Cort [​IMG] Cort, where does she say this?

    I emailed her asking her to look at the XMRV article I wrote and we talked and she told me that. That is based on their antibody results I believe. If I have this right the antibody results pick up all four strains but differentiate only two. My understanding is that antibodies respond to antigens on proteins. This suggests that two of the strains have synonymous amino acid substitutions; ie while their genome is slightly different they produce the same proteins and they have the same functionaility. The other two are different viruses or variants - I'm not sure the technical term - but my guess, based on all of this, is that they produce slightly different proteins - which different antibodies respond to. I'm just trying to piece this together - I hope its correct.
     
  17. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    ok, well this is good to hear Cort. Still it would be nice to hear it directly from her or someone else involved with these papers at some point. The picture right now is ridiculously blurry!
     
  18. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Thanks. It sounds like he said they did. I emailed Dr. Alter about it but he hasn't answered me.
     
  19. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,872
    Likes:
    6,169
    I think you have missed the point I was making.
    It was not just the CDC who couldn't detect XMRV or whatever. Dr. Lo has also tested those samples and said the following:
    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/ucm223232.htm
    When we just had the data from the Switzer et al. first came out, CDC's testing ability was the leading candidate.

    However, we now have information that the CDC *may* be not terrible at testing for XMRV: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte.../BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm221857.htm

    Combine this with the fact that Alter/Lo team didn't find any positives for XMRV and MLVs in the 34 samples they got from the Switzer et al. study and it now appears that a likely reason is because they didn't use proper CFS patients.

    There could be other reasons.

    None of my previous posts were praising the Switzer et al. study.
    And none of this is saying that there is 0% XMRV/MLVs in "proper" ME/CFS patients.


    As I pointed out, if there was a test which should find something in 1% of samples (p=0.01), if one runs it 104 times, there is a 35% chance it will find 0 positives. That doesn't prove the test is flawed. As Mark pointed out, if the CDC's test only had a 50% sensitivity, if XMRV/MLV occured in 2% of cases, there would be a 35% chance it would find 0 cases if 104 samples were run. A bit like if you flip a coin 4 times, there's a 12.5% chance you will get all heads or all tails but if one gets all heads or all tails, one hasn't proven the coin is biased.
     
  20. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,872
    Likes:
    6,169
    The more natural thing to assume I think is that they were doing the same testing, not XMRV-specific testing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page