Discussion in 'XMRV Testing, Treatment and Transmission' started by RustyJ, Jul 30, 2010.
Old friends now competitors?
Are you referring to some competition between Silverman/CC and Mikovits/WPI? If so, I seriously doubt that to be the case.
On July 1st, 2010, both Silverman and Mikovits submitted complementary patent applications.
Silverman's patent was for testing tissue: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100166797
Mikovits' patent was for testing serum: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100167268.
This newest patent application appears to be for testing fluids other than blood and so would appear to compliment the two earlier patents.
The more the merrier but yeah with the prostate they are looking at detection in tissue sample right? For now with the ME/CFS they are looking at blood and plasma.
So who's going to patent an assay for lung effluvant. (grins)
On a serious note has anyone bothered to look in what seem to me a couple of obvious places like
bone marrow - where B cells are made and according to a recent study depletion of B cells reduced symptoms of CFS but when B cells replenished the symptoms came back.
Spinal fluid - since many of the autonomic symptoms could be spinal related
Brain tissue - If the virus was infecting the pituitary or hypothalamus it could explain a lot of symptoms
I mean it seems pretty important to find the tissue resivior for the virus if you want to treat the problem.
I guess someone has asked this before, but what percentage of ME patients develop prostate cancer? Conversely what percentage of prostate cancer patients report chronic fatigue?
That would probably be the most recent Silverman test.
Klein mentions all of these in his late April presentation:
Good question! Does any body know the answer?
Het CBS I didn't see any of my three on that slide and am not familiar with Kline can you post or send me a link. I'm really interested in the bone marrow part. Thanks man
Thou i believe i have the virus in my brain ... no brain biopsies please
Rollin, rollin, rollin', keep those assays comin'.
Why not, the brain does not feel pain.
I think CSF might potentially be a good place to look for XMRV. Early on in my illness, during my acute onset, they did a LP on me to rule out MS. They found elevated protein and white cells (which aren't supposed to be there normally, per se), but not high enough to indicate MS. Now I wonder what would have been found if that CSF had been tested for XMRV. Does any one know if any studies have looked at CSF in patients during acute onset? That would be quite a trick, though, since it would require a doctor to recognize what was actually happening to the patient at the time. [heavy sigh here]
Stone, the issue is you don't have CFS until you have had the symptoms for six months. Mikovits said this is one of the main things she hopes to change.
How did that "six months" cutoff arise, anyway? I've wondered. It seems very arbitrary to me - just a kind of a broad brush attempt to eliminate people who go through a temporary period of exhaustion for a few months.
I'm similarly curious about how this report that "some people get better after a year or two" came about - I keep seeing it, and of course it interests me, since I've only been sick for 9 months.
I had a fairly acute onset (flu-like and PEM, but no fevers), and the first panel of tests my primary care doc ordered up was about a month into my illness - standard tests like thyroid etc. And HIV, which of course I don't have. Perhaps in some future utopia that initial panel would include XMRV and they could jump on it right away...
Ahh! I see what you're pointing out here. That does present quite a problem doesn't it? In my mind, so much of the problem with this disease revolves around the name. It so frequently comes back to the STUPID name, again and again. The name puts undue emphasis on 'fatigue', which is not technically 'fatigue' at all, since 'fatigue' is relieved by rest and this is not, and therefore is NOT fatigue. It is something else all together. I do not know what it should be called, but it should not be called 'fatigue'. It's much more than that. It's far different than that. This is why doctors do not understand us, family do not understand us, employers do not understand us, the press do not understand us. It's because the word 'fatigue' does not adequately describe what we experience, either post-exertionally or otherwise. It's simply not the correct nomenclature to describe this single symptom, which for many of us is not even the most troubling. For lots of us, although we do experience significant 'fatigue' for lack of a better word at the moment, our chief complaints range from immune dysfunction to pain to cognitive dysfunction to God knows what. What a mess we have on our hands courtesy of the CDC. May they never experience personally the pain they have inflicted on so many people....I'll stop writing now. It's getting hard to be positive.
The Klein presentation is entitled: “Is Prostate Cancer An Infectious Disease?”
There is a link to the video midway down this page from the American Urological Assoc. (AUA) conference held May 29 - June 3: http://webcasts.prous.com/AUA2010/html/1-en/template.aspx?section=7&p=7,11872#
It looks like you initiated a thread on the conference but the video wasn’t available at the time – Mindy of CFSCentral.com posted on Klein’s presentation at: http://www.cfscentral.com/2010/07/dr-eric-kleins-xmrv-lecture.html.
This is a fascinating lecture and it might be time to bring your thread up to date and renew discussion: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...ncer-an-Infectious-Disease-Session-Highlights.
Bone marrow is on the slide (it’s under the heading lymphoid tissue - Slides 35-38 in the presentation)
Klein mentions brain infection in his presentation (it’s not on the slide) at approx. 11:00. "very shortly after infection, XMRV homes directly to the prostate and to the brain (in mice susceptible to XMRV – Emory Univ.).
I thought that CSF was listed in Silverman’s patent as an intended fluid to be tested but upon further review, it does not appear to be listed.
So yeah, who’s studying CSF?
Isn't it ironic, therefore, that while we hate the name "CFS", we're also getting upset that the CDC is using "our" name to define a different condition?
We could just let them have the STUPID name and take on a better one.
I know it's not practical, or even reasonable, with all the work done under the old name, but we would have a lot less to complain about.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.