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!
Brain Cells Making us Sick? The microglia connection in ME/CFS & Fibromyalgia
Simon McGrath looks at theories that microglia, the brain's immune cells, could trigger and perpetuate the symptoms of ME/CFS and fibromyalgia.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Cleaning up after XMRV

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Ecoclimber, May 18, 2012.

  1. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    770
    With this historic perspective in mind, it is quite plausible to me that the rise in certain cancers since the fifties, which is unexplained, could be investigated as a retrovirally induced phenomenon.
    Yet all the research in this area is fiercely blocked, as we well know.

    If I, as a layman can work this possibility out, you can bet that it is known or suspected by those whose job it is to make health policy. So this is deliberate policy and there will be a cover up of any research that finds animal retroviruses in humans.

    What concerns me is not the minutiae of individual research papers but the avoidance of the larger question which merits investigation. If you look hard enough you will be able to fault any finding. That does not mean that a valid area of invesigation, and a genuine concern, should be closed down prematurely.
    Christopher likes this.
  2. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    770
    Also Barb, (as I have been away from this forum for a while,) has Illa Singh retracted her prostate cancer paper from 2009?
    "XMRV is present in malignant prostatic epithelium and is associated with prostate cancer, especially high grade tumors."
    You imply that she has. So I would like to know the facts on this.
    I would have thought she did all the tests to exclude any form of contamination and to confirm the reality of an MRV in her samples.
  3. free at last

    free at last Senior Member

    Messages:
    479
    Likes:
    41
    That is a very good question Currer welcome back
  4. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes:
    1,573
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    Currer, Mark

    Exactly! There's vast vested interested for all these issues to....go away.
    What pisses me off is that many folk simply will not believe such is possible, despite the vast cover ups and millions of deaths caused by the tobacco, pharma, nuclear and other industries and government, who all suck each other's man-prawns for mutual moolah! :p
    AND
    that scumbags could do such in the first place...it's certainly cultural and maybe even species suicide in the long run.

    A) As I keep trying ot get folk to see, "Science" is absolutely not the neutral, honest "deity-like-being" that many think
    While most researchers are honest, the scumbags have bought up many of the so-called "neutral, peer-review" publications, so they can put THEIR editorial controls in place (See Wakefield cases,right or worng, the Lancet is nothing better than a pharma-ad rag, see who owns it!)
    Funding can be drastically altered very easily by "whispers in the right earholes", promises of lucrative job contracts, threats to tenure etc.
    And, you can suggest that "such findings could threaten the whole integrity of science!" or other bullshit along the lines of "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"

    Thus, the whole of research gets slanted towards what is "acceptable/profitable/doesn't rock the boat".
    And yes, there's pomposity and arrogance invovled too in some researchers and "groups" see the "psychobabblers" for instance.
    EVERYTHING is heresy until it becomes orthodoxy for many, because flexibility of mind is not common, alas.

    Most research is honest, but "slanting", bias or "burial" can and does occur


    B) This field is very very complex and not at all "certain". Hence I keep saying NO ONE should get dogmatic and stupidly self assured on whether XMRV causes ME/CFS or exists on EITHER side of the arguement.
    Give it time, ladies and gentlemen, at least another two years and even then, like anything in science, keep a weather eye on it because NOTHING is certain, not ever.
    Thus the hoopla "Science" etc has done vs XMRV is outrageous.
    Yes, it means it's "shaky" indeed, but not "disproven" because too much evidence lies on "pro" to simple ignore it, which has been done, it has been ignored.
    Strong doubt or concern, is fine
    Complete refusal, is not.


    C) Do folk grasp the meaning, the outcome if Humans, cell lines, vaccines ARE infected with this class of virus, hm?
    Bet your sweet damn ass the insurance, vaccine and other companies do!
    Lawsuits in the billions, maybe trillions of dollars.
    Vast genetic damage and ill health to Huimanity and God only knows *how many other pathogens* may have been spread this way, including ones we at this time, do not know of or have any ability to detect.

    How arrogant and STUPID are we to be mucking around with genetic material like this, injecting our young with it, when we still know jack shit about almost anything?
    It's only in last few decades we've came to understand what retrovirusesm prions and mycoplasmas are, so how bloody many other unknown types of pathogens may there be, hm?!

    Let's put this in perspective:
    see, the nuclear industry/war machine.
    Nutbars polluted vast areas of land, killed huge amounts of people in ways that made it hard to detect/comprehend and took decades to get through any of the lies and secrecy and there's still asstons we don't know.

    Andrei Sakharov, the Russian bomb designer/physicist calculated that his "super bomb" test, despite being about the cleanest, safest test ever in terms of radiation (paradoxical but true), would still kill 500,000 over centuries, millenia, because of the fallout that spread worldwide. Almost impossible to weed out form normal cancer/illness deaths but he calculeted it, and was horrified, and started protesting against nukes (and suffered for that)

    By comparison, nuclear versus biological, nukes are freakin old fashioned weak ass dynamite versus Sarin nerve gas.
    The threat posed by artifial pathogens and screw ups is Brobdignian, it's SO big folk cannot see it.

    GM Crops, humongously stupid, why?
    Um, Monsanto, those scum deliberately covered up the diabolical effects of Agent Orange and they are now making GM crops...why is that bad?
    Ok, they screw up, modified genes make a food staple poisonous, world famine nesues, hundreds of millions die.
    That ain't "hyperbole" it's plain common sense fact, it's already been shown that their safety statements were ludicrous bullshit, cross pollination has occured.
    And it's being done by a company with a proven track record of deceit and complete disregard for human life on a titanic scale

    Australian scientists developing a new virus to combat the plague of rabbits damaging Austrlain crops/land had accidental release of their incredibly lethal/transmissable virus, fortunatley, it wasn't Human transmissable AND they had the sense ot have the research centre on an islandm otherwise...!
    Now think what may happen with all the commericial and US biowarfare labs you/we've got....catastrophic accident is absolutely inevitable. (and as I have noted even NATO partners have stated the USA's so-called biodefence initiative is simply too damn large and risky to fall under true "defence")
    And with some pathogens you may never know damage has been done until far far too late. See Lyme.
    And more complex the science gets, greater potential hazards get.
    US authorities calculated that there was a 60+% chance of a catastrophic accident at a new US biowarfare lab that's to be built, to study animal and plant pathogens, where do they plan to build it? In middle of one of USA's main cattle/farming areas...:confused:
    See Also Russian's "Biopreperat", lunacy, at least that was stoppedm a freakin TON weight of smallpox virus they had, which was oh about maybe 100 times more potential deaths than world's nuclear arsenal...not that you could wipe out the Human Race 100+ times but you get the idea :p

    So, by comparison, the threat from the nuclear issue (which was/is huge), is tiny by comparison vs biologicals.
    You've heard of "briefcase nukes", they are NOTHING compared to the power of a flask of the right pathogen, in *anyone's* hands, sorry but the odds are it will not be a terrorist who'll wipe a city, state or nation out with a bioweapon, but some dipshit accident from a legitimate lab, or assholes propertedly developing "biodefence" materials.

    Sigh.
    I swear, Humans are the stupidest bunch of poo-flinging, monkey dipshits! :p
    And I'm not a Luddite nor mysanthrope. I just can't lie to myself.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes:
    5,002
    I think one of my posts disappeared (or I messed up posting). I wasn't saying much though, so it's no loss.

    My sympathies - hope you and your PC feel better soon.

    re HGRV etc: We're still waiting for the Lipkin results, but the evidence we have so far would seem to indicate that Mikovits is unable to to distinguish between blinded samples from CFS patients and healthy controls that are collected in the same way. If that that is the case, then we have no more reason to think that CFS is related to a retrovirus than we did five years ago - probably less, with all of the additional testing that there's now been that's failed to find anything solid.
    barbc56 likes this.
  6. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,338
    Likes:
    1,092
    London UK

    I too would dearly like to hear a 'correction' or a credible explanation as to why this hasn't been done!?
    currer likes this.
  7. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    770
    Interesting post by "Eigerwand" on Racaniellos blog.
    http://www.virology.ws/2012/05/18/cleaning-up-after-xmrv/#comments
    What does this mean?
    What letter is being referred to here that was not published?
    "However, no one has truly disproved Dr. Mikovits and Ruscetti's main work, and the good work everyone else did that they were not permitted to discuss in their letters, when Alberts' made decision (despite the deadline he had given the collaborators) to yank the article on XMRV. "Science yanked the paper without printing the letter Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti (very timely)wrote explaining why they and others stood by their work. Why? "
    "Alberts could have printed the letter-he had plenty of time. I can send it to you if you like. There happen to be tissues that excrete the real XMRV retrovirus, kept in secure isolation, that have never been exposed to contamination,marrow, adenovirus infected lung, breast cancer tissue and more. There is great fear and earned paranoia that these samples will suddenly disappear. Trust around the agencies is not high because of the agendas and fights between egos. Dr. Racaniello, if you would contact and speak fairly and openly with these individuals-and you know who they are-you will have insight into the evolving framework of these issues."
    natasa778 and RustyJ like this.
  8. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,338
    Likes:
    1,092
    London UK
    And what additional testing has been done that failed to find ANY retrovirus?

    Or do you believe that searching for XMRV would automatically reveal presence of ANY retrovirus?! How come?
  9. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes:
    5,002
    Some of the testing related to XMRV would have been able to detect some retroviruses. So more negative testing for those retroviruses would mean less of a reason to think there's an association than there was prior to that negative testing. Which is not at all saying that this testing was for ANY retrovirus, or that it rules out any association with a retrovirus.
  10. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes:
    657
    While the quote was from a negative study, they are talking about positive studies like Mikovitz et. al. original study.
    Why do you think they are talking about negative studies?

    Barb C.:>)
  11. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes:
    657
    I think this is worth repeating. An RV would most probably be detected by now.

    Barb C.:>)
  12. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes:
    657
    Currer. I don't know and I don't think it's really pertinent to this debate. Her statement was before many of the new studies appeared. While I am also puzzled as to why she hasn't responded, it has nothing to do with the results current studies. Science is a process.

    Barb C.:>)
  13. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes:
    657
    I find that when you click edit and get the small box with the blue outline, immediately click go to more options at the bottom and not edit in the smaller box. I can't make any promises, but hope this helps.
    Barb C.:>)
  14. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes:
    1,921
    Sofa, UK
    Because I went off and read Singh's paper and found the references to the points you listed, and most of them at least were talking about the negative studies, not about Lombardi et al. I did so because at least a couple of the points make no sense at all as applied to Lombardi et al.

    Your list:

    In 1: "populations" plural? This refers to multiple studies, not one, and the control population in Lombardi et al was not too small.

    In 3: "generally" not blinded? Again, referring to multiple studies.

    In 4: "PCR assays relying on conservation of viral sequence" mainly used? Again refers to multiple studies, and this certainly was a problem regarding the negative studies - only performing PCR and only looking for a specific sequence - as opposed to Lombardi et al which used multiple methods. Indeed this criticism is one of those made repeatedly by critics of the negative studies, and here Singh is confirming that many of those criticisms of methodology were indeed valid points.

    In 5, 6, and 7: I think you could perhaps argue that these points applied to all the studies, both positive and negative, and I'd have to read through the whole of Singh's paper to be sure which she was referring to specifically when she said this.

    The last point, though, was the real giveaway that had me diving off to the paper to check. It's hardly a fair criticism of Lombardi et al that they didn't include positive samples from Lombardi et al in their study! :) Rather, when this point notes that "no study" did so, clearly that's referring to the fact that the negative studies didn't include positive samples from Lombardi et al to calibrate their test and see how their results really compared with Lombardi et al's results.

    When I followed the link you gave, I couldn't actually find that bulleted list in the paper. What I did find were sections of the paper (near the beginning) critiquing the negative studies (covering at least some of the points in that list), and sections of the paper (near the end) critiquing Lombardi et al. If you can point me to where you took that list of bullet points from, that would be most helpful. Page number from the PDF perhaps, although I couldn't find it in there; maybe you posted the wrong link?

    It's the first time I've read that paper of Singh's, and I have to say it looks to me to be far and away the best paper I've seen on the subject, in terms of its intelligence, its readability, and the strength of the analysis. It actually does make a convincing case that the findings of XMRV were contamination, and that the methodology of her own investigations was quite rigorous - I actually think this paper may have been the real turning point in genuinely understanding what was going on with XMRV, and making an honest, disinterested, unbiased assessment of the question. And the paper does list possible reasons for the Lombardi results that include extra handling of the patient samples...but in a reasoned and logical way, which I found most refreshing.

    But the criticisms listed in the bullet points are Singh's criticisms of the methodology of the negative studies, and they are the same criticisms made by members and former members of this forum - especially by Gerwyn, who expressed those same points in rather less dispassionate language :D - at the time those negative studies were released.
    currer likes this.
  15. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes:
    1,921
    Sofa, UK
    Esther may in my opinion be going a bit too far when saying that the 'negative testing for retroviruses' in the negative studies makes it less likely to think there's an association with retroviruses, because the negative testing was almost entirely for specific sequences within the VP62 strain of XMRV, so it really doesn't say anything about any other retroviruses. Indeed, as was pointed out above, it's profoundly disappointing and a little disturbing that no effort whatsoever was made to broaden the search to evidence of retroviral activity in general. Only much later in the process did a few studies start to look at a few other sequences, related to Lo/Alters' MLV-R findings. I don't think one can say that there was anything like an exhaustive search for anything other than VP62 XMRV.

    It's certainly going way too far to say that "An RV would have been detected by now". There are almost certainly still more retroviruses out there to be discovered that we don't know about, and much more within this family of MLV-related viruses that we don't understand and that has not been tested for.

    So I'm not sure it's any less likely that there's a retroviral (or ERV) connection with ME/CFS due to these results - except insofar as one might say that after Lombardi et al it looked very likely that there was, and that it was XMRV, and that particular likelihood has now diminished. And concluding that there's no RV involvement because it would have been found by now - going by my previous analogy that would be like looking for your keys in your pocket, on the table and under the sofa, not finding them, and concluding that there's no metal in your house. If anybody had used a metal detector - by analogy, something like looking for reverse transcriptase - then one might conclude that, but as ukxmrv highlighted, nobody bothered to do anything like that.
  16. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes:
    5,002
    I wouldn't go that far. It seems as if virologists speaking about XMRV and CFS/PC were not completely amazed that new technology was allowing and techniques were allowing us to detect new retroviruses associated with human disease. All manner of different viruses could have evolved in ways that we hadn't previously thought of looking for. I'd be very surprised if there was any single virus/retrovirus that was associated with CFS in the way that HIV is with AIDS, but I'd be much less surprised if new viral/retro-viral infections were found to be the cause of different subgroups of CFS. Indeed, if there are new viruses causing human disease to be discovered, it seems quite likely that a lot of the suffers of these illnesses will have been given a CFS diagnosis!
  17. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes:
    5,002
    I was only saying that we've had a string of negative studies which had been looking for a certain range of retroviruses. (As I said above actually).
  18. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes:
    1,921
    Sofa, UK
    It certainly is a highly pertinent question to ask why Singh's study, and the other studies that found an association with XMRV and prostate cancer, have not yet been retracted.

    The reasons for the retraction of Lombardi et al apply equally to those papers. If Lombardi et al was due to contamination, then so were they. If Lombardi et al is unsound, then so are they. So why, 6 months (?) after Lombardi et al was forcibly retracted, have the other studies not been?

    These double standards are extremely revealing, and the pattern has been evident throughout this debate. Research into the prostate cancer association had been continuing uncontroversially, and without furore and challenge. When the results of Lombardi et al came under attack, and when lots of money went into studies which disproved the association, the entire focus was now on the ME/CFS results. When contamination was alleged, that allegation was levelled solely at Lombardi et al, even though as we repeatedly pointed out on this forum, if that study was wrong, then all the other studies, including the prostate cancer studies, must also be wrong.

    The association with ME/CFS was singled out and treated differently throughout, criticisms were focused entirely unfairly on Dr Mikovits when they applied to many other scientists too, and the campaign to retract Lombardi et al was relentless. After that was retracted, it turns out not to be important to retract any of the other studies which are equally tainted by the same findings. They remain on the books - Singh's study remains on the books.

    If Singh believes that all XMRV detection is contamination, then why has she not retracted her own findings of XMRV? Why have the other researchers who found XMRV not done so?

    This is now perhaps the most suspicious aspect of the entire affair, because they suggest there may be truth in the rumours that senior researchers were told from a very high level at an early stage that research into prostate cancer and XMRV may continue, but research into ME/CFS and XMRV must cease.
    currer likes this.
  19. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes:
    1,681
    London
    I can't see how anyone can argue that a another RV would have been found by the methods used to try and discredit the involvement of XMRV.

    Does anyone have a quote from the RV to confirm this? Can anyone tell me how scientifically this would have been done. None of the RV'gists who have been kind enough to answer my emails have ruled this out.

    Can anyone explain why the RV'gists who were keen to discredit XMRV have not run any tests on CFS for reverse transcriptise at the very least?

    I've been following this since before the Science paper was published. I'm seeing a double standard and a lacking of willingness for RV'gists to get involved here in any capacity other than to discredit XMRV in CFS.
    currer likes this.
  20. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes:
    657
    I think we are talking about two different studies and I may not have been clear about that. I was in editing hell at the time.:eek:

    I cited the following study as someone asked how the patients could have different outcomes in the positive studies.

    Ila Singh finds no XMRV in patients with chronic fatigue

    This is from Raceinallo's blog about the Singh paper:

    http://www.virology.ws/2011/05/04/ila-singh-finds-no-xmrv-in-patients-with-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/


    The last point is specifically talking about the Mikovitz Limbardi original paper. The other points were indeed talking about all the positive papers.

    In my other post I was talking about the new papers.

    Barb. C.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page