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!
Lessons from ME/CFS: Finding Meaning in the Suffering
If you're aware of my previous articles here at Phoenix Rising then it's pretty clear that I don't generally spend my time musing upon the philosophy of the disease. I find it better to spend my time reading research and trying my best to break it down to its core elements and write...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CDC XMRV Retrovirology Study on CFS Published

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by KFG, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    I'm sure Frank ruscetti said xmrv can be found in plasma. Isn't that what Vernon ment about the tubes.
  2. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    > They must have run the assays (or samples), don't you think? They must have asked for them - the question is why didn't they use them and what were the results?

    They ran them and got all negatives according to Mindy Kitei. She pretty much reported the MMD/ORTHO news 6 or 7 days before MMD/ORTHO did, so I believe what she says. Furthermore, she asked CDC about it quite precisely in an interview and they artlessly ducked the question.
  3. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    They probably had it fixed in their minds that XMRV was contamination, and then the NIH/FDA study came along to upset them. Obviously they are too arrogant not to publish, and admit they should have had a test able to detect it in those samples.
  4. John Leslie

    John Leslie

    Messages:
    39
    Likes:
    0
    The CDC lead author had XMRV positive samples for 9 months. The CDC tested the WPI positive samples and could not find XMRV. Rather than tell everyone that fact and then say: "We are going forward with a method that may or may not work, with patient samples that may or may not be as good as samples we could get from subscribers to Newsweek." Anything else they did or did not do after that failure is irrelevant. I have a lawyer in a very small firm in California working on this matter, but I think someone who knows a lot more about this should be confronting the CDC on this "study" and what it really means.
  5. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    I would guess that someone there ran the assays, as Mindy Kitei's sources said they did.

    Disturbingly, this now makes THREE negative studies that failed to report that samples were sent to and/or received from the WPI. In fact, the WPI had to reveal this information themselves in each case. You would have thought that the CDC, having seen that the WPI made this information public in the case of the other two studies, would have come clean on their own. Though perhaps they were counting on the fact that not as many people would be aware of any subsequent WPI press release...

    My understanding is that when you 'spike' a blood sample - or a water sample - with XMRV plasmid you are essentially just dumping retrovirus into the fluid, not necessarily making sure that it is integrated into the cells. That makes it potentially much easier to detect. When you test a human blood sample for XMRV, the cells may not be replicating and therefore the virus is not replicating -- especially if the sample is not fresh blood. Therefore you are very probably looking for latent virus that is hidden in host DNA. This demands a better method for detection, which is why the WPI, NCI, and Cleveland Clinic had to use RT-PCR and/or a culture step to pick up the virus. The difference between looking in a spiked control versus in a patient blood sample is, as Dr. Mikovits said in one presentation, like going from looking for a needle in a haystack to looking for a bowling ball in a bathtub.

    So what we need is for an inside source to come forward or at least provide some more evidence. In the meantime the CDC needs to be questioned persistently about the WPI statement and the (as yet anecdotal) reports that both they and an independent lab already tested the WPI samples.
  6. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Messages:
    753
    Likes:
    16
    Vancouver Canada suburbs
  7. thegodofpleasure

    thegodofpleasure Player in a Greek Tragedy

    Messages:
    113
    Likes:
    1
    Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
    Thanks for this Dr. Yes. I know that the Van Kuppeveld study received samples from the WPI but which other -ve study are you referring to ?


    This is also good stuff to know about. I'd been wondering about the issues which influence test method validation and the significance of the Imperial College study using water instead of blood. Now I think I understand this better. Thanks !

    TGOP
  8. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes:
    1,693
    :Retro smile:
  9. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes:
    1,067
    London UK
    while I cannot go inside Dr Yes's mind ;) I am aware that Huber did receive samples, ran them, decided it was contamination... she didn't give many details in her presentation, just very quickly and vaguely skimmed over the slides. Her study was negative btw, has not been published yet and so far turned down by 2 journals.
  10. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    Hi TGOP, I was referring to the Groom/Kerr study as the first study whose authors either sent samples to or received them from the WPI, or both. The authors of that study sent samples to the WPI. From Annette Whittemore's letter to McClure:

    "We would also like to report that WPI researchers have previously detected XMRV in patient samples from both Dr. Kerr’s and Dr. van Kuppeveld’s cohorts prior to the completion of their own studies, as they requested. We have email communication that confirms both doctors were aware of these findings before publishing their negative papers. In addition, Dr. van Kuppeveld asked for and received reagents and a positive patient sample to determine if his testing procedures could in fact detect XMRV in a positive blood sample before he published his paper. We wonder why these materials were not used in his study which also failed to detect XMRV."

    So the WPI was sent samples from Kerr and van Kuppevald's cohorts, and sent a positive sample to Kuppevald (confirmed positive) and 20 positive samples to the CDC... all in advance of study publication, yet not one of those authors made so much as a comment on the matter (until a reporter called van Kuppevald and put him on the spot).

    So that's why I had that pounding headache last night...

    I had forgotten about Huber's study. I hope (when and if she gets published) she mentions the WPI samples, but somehow I doubt it...

    It really is ridiculous for some to have accused the WPI of being 'uncooperative' and not sharing samples. The reality is that the professional conduct of the authors of the negative studies has been disgraceful.
  11. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    tubes

    I have contacted Dr. Bieger in Munich, Germany, who is offering a test for XMRV. When asked, if i have to come to Munich or if i could send blood to him, he replied that i could send it and that it should be "heparin blood".
    That's no proof other tubes won't work of course, but it's another example for someone using heparin tubes, like Lombardi et al. and VIP Dx.

    I wonder what would happen if you apply for benefits and say "I've never seen a doctor, i've been diagnosed via telephone".
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,509
    Likes:
    8,756
    England, UK
    Good point!

    If they used Reeves' telephone criteria to establish benefits entitlement, then I think that most of the population would be on benefits!
  13. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,490
    Likes:
    4,245
    Sth Australia
    I read all the bad science forum and actually thought that group seemed to be quite decent (i lot better then how i find the general poplution is towards those with CFS)...asking decent questions about it all in their scientific community and most seem to be keeping an open mind and just waiting to see what happens.. i hope people dont flood their group.
  14. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,490
    Likes:
    4,245
    Sth Australia
    Im thinking along those lines too.. the CFS community needs to start working with other communities over the XMRV stuff more.

    A standarditized test is currently trying to be made. I think once that happens, everything will have a bit more hope. (as long as test is done sensitive enough)
  15. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,490
    Likes:
    4,245
    Sth Australia
    What i dont get is so many other illnesses have recognised subgroups, so why dont we have offical recognised ones. eg take bipolar for instance.. bipolar 1, bipolar 2, rapid cycling bipolar, mixed bipolar, cyclothymic ... There are so many different illnesses in which are divided into many forms. Why on earth arent thdy doing this for CFS. Maybe this is something which needs to be pushed so we dont keep being left with stuffed up studies.
  16. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    You can't subgroup something you don't know enough about. Subgrouping illness on a ubiquitous illness, and health, experience as 'fatigue' is ludicrous, yet this is what has been advocated for years.
  17. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    They did not diagnose over the phone; they asked questions over the phone and then the possible CFS patients were seen in a clinic to determine if they had CFS.
  18. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    428
    Raleigh, NC
    I think that's a good question about the plasma - who knows, maybe a key question?: I don't know that heparin or citrate make the difference regarding plasma. However, they looked at whole blood and PBMC's - not plasma as Ruscetti recommended.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page