1. Patients launch a $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!
The Lipkin Microbiome Crowdfunding Campaign Launches!
An ambitious $1.27m international, patient-led fundraising campaign storms into action. Sasha invites you to join it!
Discuss the article on the Forums.

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

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. Phoenix Rising Team

    Phoenix Rising Team

    Messages:
    649
    Likes:
    993
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes:
    4,833
    Thanks Cort.

    At this point, we're just waiting for news from the BWG.

    It does seem strange that the WPI might have stumbled upon an accurate testing method when other's can't... but putting them to the test on blinded samples is the only way to test that out.

    I can't believe how confused the phase II results were though.
  3. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    837
    UK
    Thanks Cort, very positive and upbeat article, and even if our "favourite" virus is not quite there it may be part of the picture still.
  4. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    103
    England
    insufficient priveldge to access page?

    edit - now have access - damn interthingy
  5. asleep

    asleep Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes:
    212
    Cort, did you ask Satterfield if Cooperative Diagnostics refunded people who paid for their defective commercial test?
  6. garcia

    garcia Aristocrat Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    931
    Likes:
    90
    London, UK
    Cooperative Diagnostics are the idiots who wrongly claimed that a pin-prick test could be used to diagnose a retroviral infection. So ridiculous was this claim that even Dr Coffin openly pooh poohed it.

    As asleep asked I too would like to know if Cooperative Diagnostics has refunded all those people it duped. If not, does it have any plans to?
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes:
    4,833
    Yeah... I was wondering if we'd get some questions like this. The WPI only brought their test out after the co-op one, and the rush to market was a bad thing. It would have been good to know how many people had been charged, if they were refunded, etc.
  8. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    If you look at Dr. Satterfield's response he reports that their test was developed using their technology and based on the results of the Lombardi et al paper.

    I don't think there's any reason to refund them simply because their later tests using more blood were still unable to pick up the virus; ie even when they got the test right XMRV wasn't there. If they had started finding XMRV at that point then they would have had an obligation to redo the tests I would think.

    I think everybody taking any of the tests realizes or should realize - that none of the tests, VIP Dx's or Coop Diag are 'validated'. I believe all the tests come with disclaimers? I believe there is a validation process that labs can go through that is quite extensive - and nobody has gone through that yet.
  9. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Messages:
    855
    Likes:
    170
    England
    Sigh....

    What CoOpDx and Satterfield knew was their test could pick up a single copy of the VP62 clone. They did not calibrate their test against a validated positive sample. Lombardi's tests were set up with a much wider sensitivity, as has been pointed out several times before. Bear in mind that the other two human retroviruses have a variability of >85%, and there is no reason to expect any different from the Human Gamma Retroviruses.

    Not to mention all the other things he did and did not do, that meant Satterfield had no chance of finding wild XMRV in his samples, however much he wanted to, even in patients riddled with the retrovirus.

    Yawn...
  10. Marty

    Marty Senior Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes:
    17
    Excellent report, Cort; this is the way science should be discussed if the discussion is to be productive. (Wish others would learn this lesson.) We look forward to hearing Judy's viewpoint. Thanks for your effort.
  11. invisible ME

    invisible ME

    Messages:
    44
    Likes:
    0
    Thanks for posting this, Cort! Whatever happens, this has been an enormously educational experience. Who knew science was filled with so much drama!? :D

    I hope he's right in suggesting that even if the XMRV research does not pan out, ME/CFS is on the minds of serious politicians and researchers more than ever before.
  12. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes:
    1,957
    UK
    Cort, I think the arguement given in responce to your question about antibodies, was extremely weak. If i can see that, then im sure anyone else can, so no need for me to explain why.

    To be honest, ive read this and lots of other articles on here over the last week, and I've noticed there is a lot of posturing and positioning going on.

    Something us patients need to remember is that this is business to these people (most anyway) and that means $s. I bet that Mikovits knows for sure that there is XMRV but she isnt about to go into detail explaining how to run the tests to find it because she quite rightly wants the credit for it, and the WPI want to make money out of it. They are no doubt developing reliable tests for mass processing.

    In addition all these 'negative' studies, and interviews like this one, tell us something. Other people think she is on to something too, else they woudlnt spend their respources (read: money) on trying to replicate it. They try to find it - if they can, great they might be able to take some credit and even make some money out of it somehow. If they cant find it, then there is nothing for them to gain, except possibly developing new ways to find it, and what they need for that is time. So they try to discredit their competition.

    It will all come out in the wash eventually.
  13. Navid

    Navid Senior Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes:
    58
    snow; i'm sure everything you wrote is 100% true....but in the meantime, since 10/09 (well way before that, but hope rose on 10/09) i've been lying in bed with dry heaves, insomnia, overall body pain and a 9 yo son who is feeling terrible that his mother is soo sick. the way the world works really sucks!!!!


    thanks for your insightful but sad post.

    warmest regards
  14. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes:
    1,957
    UK
    Hi Navid,

    It is sad isnt it; the way the world works. Still, at least there is hope that even in the system the world works in, progress is being made, albeit slower than it should be, and slower than we would like.

    We just need to all hang in there a while longer...

    Best
    Snowathlete
  15. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    1,989
    Likes:
    1,957
    UK
    Currer, thats interesting: About Silvermans article in the American Journal of Urology. Thanks for pointing that out.
  16. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Thanks, Currer, that's very good to hear. Silverman and Klein not abandoning XMRV is good news. Now i'll go and look at the article.
  17. Joopiter76

    Joopiter76 Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    Likes:
    10
    And even if XMRV would be no issue in CFS the test to differ CFS patients from others may be already found.
  18. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    Cough....Actually the interview said Cooperative Diagnostics was able to take advantage of the continuing research to look for more aspects of XMRV than Lombardi et al did.

    For instance they were able to look for antibodies to more proteins than Lombardi did. In the original paper they looked for antibodies to an MLV protein not to XMRV - because that test had not been developed yet. In the Satterfield paper they developed antibody tests by using actual XMRV proteins and the antibodies they used were able to pick up XMRV in the macaques; ie they were validated.

    Dr. Satterfield reported that they validated their test against the same VP62 clone that Lombardi et al did. If you go to the back of the supplementary section of the Lombardi paper you'll see a figure indicating that that worked just fine.

    I certainly hope they find more variability in XMRV; thus far they haven't in prostate cancer or CFS patients; doing that would certainly change things :)
  19. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    Agreed..the good thing is with all this work being done - and a study by Jay Levy - which we didn't even know about until a couple of days ago that is just about done - I think they will actually figure this thing out.
  20. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    263
    Long Beach, CA
    Thank you for posting this, Cort. You asked very good questions. And thanks to Dr Satterfield for taking the time to answer your questions. Whether or not I agree with what he says, his answers were thoughtful. He didn't give the common condescending line of "I won't bother to explain, because you are patients, not scientists, and you wouldn't understand." Nor did he imply that patients are willing to believe anything because we are desperate. That's refreshing. He also wasn't throwing in "sound bite" kind of proclamations and mud-slinging. I appreciate his giving us the "why" behind his opinions.

    You're right --in one sense-- that this wasn't what I want to hear. But I do want to hear serious debate about the science, and Dr Satterfield at least raises some legitimate issues. If he ends up being right that XMRV isn't the cause of ME/CFS, then we need to know that.

    I still think a retrovirus makes sense from a clinical standpoint. It presents a kind of unified field theory of the disease, explaining all the various components of it in a way that other etiology theories haven't. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Dr Satterfield is overly optimistic in thinking that if XMRV proves not to be cause, researchers will have had their curiosity aroused and still want to find the cause of ME/CFS. Sad to say, historically that has not been the case.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page