You can view the page at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?523-Lo-Alter-Retract-MLV-Paper-on-CFS
-
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.
Article: Lo/Alter Retract MLV Paper on CFS
- Thread starter Phoenix Rising Team
- Start date
Dr Mikovits on her work with Lipkin:
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way
):
'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way
):'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
ME patients do not quote ERV - thought you should know that. She believes in a psychiatric cause for ME.
Dr Mikovits on her work with Lipkin:
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way
'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
Complete balderdash.
Does she really? I haven't gotten that by reading her (I do spot read her though). She can be so aggressive that she courts hostility and I guess its possible that she's concluded we're all a bunch of fruitcakes.
She is snarky for sure and has been a strong critic of XMRV and Dr. Mikovits from the beginning. I wrote her an email suggesting that maybe she needed to see a therapist given her incredible hostility but there's no denying she's smart. Dusty Miller took a look at some of her blogs and said she was right on - on the facts. She's a tough one to deal with though - I definitely acknowledge that.
Yea, Cort, really.
Does she really? I haven't gotten that by reading her (I do spot read her though). She can be so aggressive that she courts hostility and I guess its possible that she's concluded we're all a bunch of fruitcakes.
Dr Mikovits on her work with Lipkin:
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way
'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
Thanks Firestormm - It was good to hear that coming from Dr. Mikovits; she appears to be open to whatever the study finds. This stuff is so complex! ERV's are in genomes not mitochondrial DNA - not sure why that is or exactly what it means but it does provide an answer......(interesting that Racaniello did not pick that up).
LOL - Did you single-handedly inspire her hostility to CFS patients Cort?
I've seen some things where she seemed unfairly willing to typify CFS patients according to a few extreme examples, and I get the impression that her work with HIV is used to legitimise a postured cynicism with regard to matters of morality and justice, but I also get the impression that those CFS patients who dislike her the most do so because of her forthright attacks on Mikovits/WPI, rather than just because of things she has said about CFS though (but I could be wrong, and would be interested to see the quotes that have most troubled others).
Here is news about the next NGS study from Lipkin:
'The Chronic Fatigue Initiative, launched Sept. 15, 2011, will provide $10 million from the Hutchins Family Foundation to support research and clinical experts at the worlds leading research institutions. The multi-faceted program will begin by funding projects at Columbia University on pathogen discovery and an epidemiology project at the Harvard School of Public Health. The CFIs mission is closely aligned with the CFIDS Associations and the two organizations approaches are highly complementary. In 2012: Samples collected for the XMRV/MLV Lipkin study will be evaluated by Lipkins team at Columbias Center for Infection and Immunity will be tested for known and novel pathogens using high-throughput molecular techniques.'
http://www.research1st.com/2012/01/...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Research1st+(Research1st)
So the 'Lipkin Study' may indeed have been funded by that $2.3m we were discussing, to look for XMRV/MLVs a la Lombardi and Lo - then the samples collected used by this Initiative as part of NGS.
An answer? Will have to wait and see still I guess.
'The Chronic Fatigue Initiative, launched Sept. 15, 2011, will provide $10 million from the Hutchins Family Foundation to support research and clinical experts at the worlds leading research institutions. The multi-faceted program will begin by funding projects at Columbia University on pathogen discovery and an epidemiology project at the Harvard School of Public Health. The CFIs mission is closely aligned with the CFIDS Associations and the two organizations approaches are highly complementary. In 2012: Samples collected for the XMRV/MLV Lipkin study will be evaluated by Lipkins team at Columbias Center for Infection and Immunity will be tested for known and novel pathogens using high-throughput molecular techniques.'
http://www.research1st.com/2012/01/...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Research1st+(Research1st)
So the 'Lipkin Study' may indeed have been funded by that $2.3m we were discussing, to look for XMRV/MLVs a la Lombardi and Lo - then the samples collected used by this Initiative as part of NGS.
An answer? Will have to wait and see still I guess.
Cort, does it bother you that Dr. Lo is the guy who did the autopsies on the 6 dead bodies who died from mycoplasma incognitus and Lo holds the patent on that germ? Here I was hoping he would be our knight in shining armor and now he goes along with withdrawing the paper on their finding of a retrovirus in CFS patients. Will they trash it all or will Lo continue the research? Who knows?
On another topic, I have to add after raising 2 kids who are brilliant that true intelligence needs wisdom. Wisdom leads to humility. I do not see that in ERV. Furthermore, I suspect if my son with a PhD in math or my brother with a PhD in physics had written a blog like her's they would have been kicked out of grad school. If she is really smart she should be saying at least, "Hum, this is fascinating and fits with the history of this disease. We need to keep studying this."
Furthermore, she needs to at least be agnostic about God as no one can prove or disprove the original cause of the universe. Atheism as a religion is not so smart. I could write more. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"? It certainly is not that God is defined by the contents of a human cell. Galileo was a smart guy, so is Mikovits. Neither are atheists. I can only add that I am so glad I am not ERV's mother.
On another topic, I have to add after raising 2 kids who are brilliant that true intelligence needs wisdom. Wisdom leads to humility. I do not see that in ERV. Furthermore, I suspect if my son with a PhD in math or my brother with a PhD in physics had written a blog like her's they would have been kicked out of grad school. If she is really smart she should be saying at least, "Hum, this is fascinating and fits with the history of this disease. We need to keep studying this."
Furthermore, she needs to at least be agnostic about God as no one can prove or disprove the original cause of the universe. Atheism as a religion is not so smart. I could write more. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"? It certainly is not that God is defined by the contents of a human cell. Galileo was a smart guy, so is Mikovits. Neither are atheists. I can only add that I am so glad I am not ERV's mother.
Atheism is not a religion any more that not collecting stamps is a hobby or being bald is a haircut.
Your assertion that Atheism is not smart is not supported by evidence
If you are only gong to respect the opinions of scientists who have the same religious beliefs a yourself then that is a very small fraction.
As Will said, atheism is not a religion. And the claim "The universe is there, so god must have created it" is not much smarter than atheistic approach, as it leads to exactly the same question "Who created god then?".
It is a fair comment to suggest that a dogmatic and agressive belief in anything narrows the mind.
I'm confused what the context of this talk of atheism as a religion is anyway, did ERV or someone mention it somewhere that I missed ?
What came to my mind was the comment from Lipkin saying he remained agnostic when it came to XMRV/MLVs and CFS/ME! Don't know why... weird day I guess:
http://www.virology.ws/2011/05/06/ian-lipkin-on-xmrv/