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!
Nitric oxide and its possible implication in ME/CFS (Part 1 of 2)
Andrew Gladman explores the current and historic hypotheses relating to nitric oxide problems in ME/CFS. Part 1 of a 2-part series puts nitric oxide under the microscope and explores what it is, what it does and why it is so frequently discussed in the world of ME/CFS. Part 1 focuses...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Blood Products Advisory Committee Meeting Announcement (BPAC) December 14-15, 2010

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Otis, Nov 26, 2010.

  1. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas
    Can anyone explain why each lab used a different type of test?

    Can anyone explain why we are down to three labs now? We started with the WPI, the CDC, Two FDA labs, a NIH lab, and the NCI (Ruscetti) lab. We seem to be down to the WPI, the CDC, NCI and Gen-Probe. Any takers on that question?
  2. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    No results from the WPI????

    Gen-Probe takes a shot using a different methodology - and finds nothing - but its using new technology that has not been validated, so it's a bit of a wash...

  3. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    Here's WPI

    Remember samples are blinded and from someone who tested positively and this is newly drawn, never before stored blood at the WPI

    They wrongly identified a negative control as positive - but think they can explain that..

    They were able to identify XMRV correctly in 3 of 4 positives - it wasn't easy, they could only do so on one day and they missed on one but the important thing is that by and large they identified the positive samples correctly - a big win

    This suggests a) because the controls tested negative, their lab is not contaminating the samples
    b) while its not always easy to find XMRV they can find it and in mostly the right samples but not always....

    On the other hand if they had only 5 samples - they would have known 4 should have been positive - so much for blinding...and on one of the days they misidentified which one was positive.

    It's a little sketchy because they missed on one control and XMRV is not easy to find - and, suggests that really, no one has a really good test for it yet.

    The salient fact is though, that, by and large the WPI picked out the controls from the positives and that is the acid test. It suggests to me that the WPI is doing some right the other labs are not and that the BWG should be very carefully going over the labs procedures - down to the smallest detail - to see what the WPI is doing differently.

    To me this seems this is something like a weak win for the WPI. If they had gotten that negative right it would have been bigger.

    If you put this in a chart you find that they picked the right positive only 2/5 times..They got the negative right 1/2 times....They didn't even mention in this chart what happened to samples 2,3,4 on Day 0!

    The straight PCR test needs alot of work - which is why the WPI is now focusing on culturing I suppose.

  4. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    226
    Western US
    Val,

    First, Thank you for being our eyes and ears on the 14th. You really came through for everyone.

    The Ruscetti Lab is in NCI's Center for Cancer Research -
    NCI-Frederick
    Leukocyte Biology Section
    Building 567

    http://ccr.cancer.gov/Staff/staff.asp?profileid=5488

    The NCI's HIV Drug Resistance Program (DRP) located on the Frederick campus but it is located in a different building:

    [FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]HIV Drug Resistance Program
    National Cancer Institute
    NCI-Frederick, Building 535, Room 109

    Here's a link to the HIV-DRP research teams: http://home.ncifcrf.gov/hivdrp/research_team.html

    So, it appears that Ruscetti's lab is separate from the DRP. However, it would be interesting to know if they collaborated in any manner.


    ETA: Sandra Ruscetti's lab also appears to be seperate from the DRP:

    [/FONT]Laboratory of Cancer Prevention
    Head, Retroviral Pathogenesis Section Senior Investigator [​IMG] Building 567, Room 152
    NCI-Frederick
    [FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
    http://ccr.cancer.gov/Staff/staff.asp?profileid=5518
    [/FONT]
  5. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas
    CBS, is this what Dr. Mikovits meant when she said they(NCI) "took it to a new lab that had not done any previous XMRV testing" ?
  6. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    Using NAT only WPI finds positives and not all the time but remarkably day 2 shows up again. This is a really good sign because a pattern suggests something real - something biological - is going on...

    (on the other hand could it mean that the longer it is in the WPI the more likely it is to pick up something? Remember, though, the CDC also had a day 2 pattern in Phase IIa....suggesting the pattern is biological- something to do with the virus)

    Interestingly WPI again on Day 1 finds 'the negative control' (one negative control!) positive...which again is a little helpful..something is happening on Day 1..

    I think the Day 2 pattern is really going to help them.....

  7. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    I think that was the UK study?
  8. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    The all important antibody tests

    A real mixture -suggesting that the serology REALLY tests need work...

    The NCI identifies the positives 5/8 times correctly and the control half the time. Which means they were incorrect about 40% and 50% of the time - which means too many false negatives and positives... and too little testing as well (just 5 samples).

    If the WPI accords with these findings their antibody tests are not ready for game time - unless they test them again and again and decide that only the positives are correct. If that's right they could say, yes, we picked up 75% of the positives.

    The problem is that we don't know about the other side - the false positives. Finding the control positive suggests they are picking up those as well.

    I can't imagine you can tell much with 5 samples anyway...particularly just one control sample???

    CDC finds nothing. They reported they looked for multiple MLV's - so they are looking for the pMLV's and found nothing

  9. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    226
    Western US
    I was not aware of her having said that but it would explain that statement.
  10. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    Conclusions from Phase IIb

    I think only the WPI found positives in the second round collected using the phlebotomy company.... That could be a danger sign for the WPI - except that, by and large, they identified the positives correctly.......;););)

    So it's more of a danger sign for everyone else, I think :Retro smile::Retro smile:
  11. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    Overall Conclusions from Phase II

    Their conclusion - include more samples - a good idea!

    All in all I can see why the WPI would not be displeased by these results. XMRV is a tough nut to crack even for them but they seem closer than anyone to cracking it. Dr. Mikovits is now going to talk on XMRV, Lyme, atypical MS, etc.....:). I think she feels good.

    What is the Phase III Panel?

  12. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    226
    Western US
    My left nut

    I would like to see detection in blood samples compared to detection in tissue samples.

    If I recall correctly, the animal model study data detected XMRV in the testes during both the "acute" and "chronic" phases of infection. Add to that the findings of Ila Singh (as per the patent application) that:

    It's clear that we need to stop messing around with just the blood and get down to business with finding the virus where it lives. I'd literally give my left nut to move this thing forward (but let's hope it doesn't come to that).
  13. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    432
    Raleigh, NC
    It is frustrating basically knowing it is there! Hopefully Singhs autopsy paper will wake more people up. I can't imagine that it won't if it shows what we think it does....
  14. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes:
    2,736
    Couchland, USA
    For frack's sake! This has been bugging me since the beginning...why *does* everyone insist on looking in the blood when we know for scientific fact that is not where it is most prevalent?
    But, erm, CBS, I sincerely wish all your body parts shall remain intact...
  15. Valb626

    Valb626

    Messages:
    39
    Likes:
    0
    CSB, thanks so much for the NCI info!! You "noted" that Coffin consults to NCI/DRP, right? (Save that man part, man!)

    leela, in the intro slide to the BWG results, the presenter basically said they "really need" a reliable/valid blood test because that's most cost-effective for dealing with the blood supply, as well as for cheap, easy testing of individuals (us!).
  16. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes:
    2,736
    Couchland, USA
    Okay, in this context, point taken. But in the continued debate about whether it exists at all, I think searching in tissues is essential.
  17. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    15
    Ok I probably am not getting most of it..could someone in a few sentencss tell me why Coffin is negative (as opposed to cautious) about xmrv, that is, how does that present itself?
  18. pictureofhealth

    pictureofhealth XMRV - L'Agent du Jour

    Messages:
    534
    Likes:
    1
    Europe
    Yes, I guess the BWG will be looking for a blood test above all. Not sure how this works though if Singh and others indicate that XMRV mainly lurks in tissue (after the initial acute infection).

    However, I do remember Dr Singh suggesting that if the subjects (Macaque monkeys in this case) were injected with something to stimulate the immune system (there is a word for this I have forgotten!), then the virus re emerges from the tissues and starts re-circulating in the blood.

    So maybe the way forward for the BWG is to stimulate the immune systems of the patient group and see if they have better/more consistent luck at turning up positive results for XMRV in greater numbers in blood after this stimulation/injection.
  19. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    Messages:
    510
    Likes:
    13
    WTF?! So, for the DHHS it doesn't matter if people are sick, or if other people would get infected with a retrovirus that can cause ME/CFS, cancers and who knows what else - all they care about is how many people are interested? I mean, if just 10 people are interested - so they'll say "let the virus spread and let many more people get sick, without a good way to help them when they do"?
    This seems to me very very disgraceful!
  20. urbantravels

    urbantravels disjecta membra

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes:
    506
    Los Angeles, CA
    Take a breath, omerbasket. This is a positive message from the DHHS, not a negative. Not a "we'll cut off all funding and never get interested in this topic again if you patients don't show up" message, but a "we actually give a damn what the patient community thinks and whether they want more access to this information" message. THAT'S BEEN GREVIOUSLY ABSENT from health agency interactions with patients in the past decades and we should be jumping for joy every time we see indications that the health agencies' attitudes are changing.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page