Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Aftermath, Oct 13, 2009.
That's going a bit off topic but still I'd like to hear from Gerwyn or anyone knowledgeable on that.
Yes, I think you are right gu3vara, about both things...
I think it means that every single cell in the body would contain HHV-6 integration (I'm not an expert about this!)
I think people with HHV-6 integration have specific symptoms that other people with a normal HHV-6 infection don't get... but I can't remember the details of this.
There's no evidence of XMRV behaving like an endogenous virus, as far as I am aware.
I can't speak for Tina, but I think she means that we are only aware of there being 3 exogenous human retroviruses... and she is suggesting that there could be many undiscovered, hidden, human retroviruses.
Thanks natasa, very interesting... I don't understand what it all means though, in terms of the bigger picture, for the human population and HIV transmission and resistance etc.
Thanks Bob, that makes sense.
Amazing about those kids inheriting HIV that doesn't make them sick Natasa.
a year ago, I'd read a scientific magazine, reporting that the human genome(DNA) consists of 8% endogenous retrovirus particles. All in all, we're pretty much itself a retrovirus...
so basically, we're 8% walking retroviruses!!!
that might explain a thing or two about some of the people i know!
Here's that message from Dr. Bell regarding CAV:
This sounds similar to what Justin was saying. The WPI is focusing on XMRV right now and that's as it should be. I'm cool with that but I do hope CAV is revisited in the future and in fact it may be a necessary piece of the puzzle, maybe in some of us, maybe in all of us.
Thanks for putting Dr. Bell's comment into context, starryeyes. It was implied earlier in the thread that he thought we shouldn't talk about it. But what he is really seems to be saying is, "Don't ask me because I don't know." I think that remark was over-analyzed. I agree with what you said--let's concentrate on XMRV but think about revisiting CAV in the future. That would be something if we had two retroviruses in us
Thanks for that starryeyes... it makes perfect sense that the WPI focuses on XMRV right now... they've only got very limited resources.
NIH's Straus: Naps, emotions and lack of exercise are the culprits, not a retrovirus
Osler's Web concludes on p.684 with a talk given by Stephen Straus at the American College of Rheumatology in 1994:
Sorry if this has already been covered but, do we know if XMRV is different to the Defreitas virus? If so are people able to be tested for that retrovirus and the others that are known to exist in humans? maybe cfs is due to a retrovirus but not always the same one?
superinfecting helper virus
Since the DeFreitas and and XMRV virons are significantly different in size, they are probably different retroviruses. The DeFrietas microbe may have been HERV-K http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/9/1/72.pdf (see p.84 and reference 40).[/QUOTE]
fantastic thread, don't know if saw it back in the day but glad to see it now, what a wealth of info
too tired to say a lot but coldtaste is funny as hell
I am concerned that De Grice said in that LA xmrv article last year the stuff he did that coldtaste (name right? too lazy to check back) points out that bogus aspect of his words but since he is head of NCI and they are part of NIH that is involved in the xmrv research.....it makes me wonder what sort of influence he wants to have over the Alter paper?
Also what Hyde said was brilliant about cdc coverup is like "state terrorism' but i recall him being down on xmrv, remember why?
After the Lo/Alter paper, it is more than obvious now that Elaine's CFS retrovirus she named CAV is one of the MLV variants. I have no doubt that this is the case rather than it being a 2nd novel retrovirus in CFS/ME unrelated to XMRV/MLV.
Elaine must have a big smile every time she goes to sleep at nights. God bless and sweet dreams......
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.