Did You Have Yourself a Crashy Little Christmas?
Jody Smith may have dodged a holiday bullet this year. She's hoping. Only time will tell. How did you fare?
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Dr. Mikovits answers my mail: Something important

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by omerbasket, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. Bob

    Bob I'm Annie Gsampel

    England (south coast)
    Here are some points that I noted while reading it... Some of this might be incorrect... I need to check over the paper again...

    "All nine laboratories used
    XMRV/P-MLV nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT),
    serological and/or culture assays of their own choosing..."

    The positive controls used XMRV taken from the 22Rv1 cell line.

    The WPI failed to reliably detect the positive controls (i.e. XMRV taken from the 22Rv1 cell line), whereas all (all? or nearly all?) the other labs did have success with the positive controls.

    The WPI did not report on their cultured samples because they had an issue of contamination with mycoplasma.

    Lo did use cultured assays, as advised by Mikovits, but had no success.
    ixchelkali likes this.
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Thanks for all that work Bob. It was good to have you provide a summary like that. It's still possible that some HGRV-type thing will be right for CFS, but it does seem like anyone claiming an association is back to square one for now.
  3. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Hi Bob,

    (I'm not cyber-stalking you, btw! I'm just interested in understanding this and teasing apart the different threads of the argument to try and improve my own understanding.)

    If it's true that, somehow, the BWG failed to preserve the virus in the samples would this not, in fact, be evidence that Frank Ruscetti's lab is contaminated, given that he managed to culture virus from 9 out of 25 samples (6/15 controls and 3/10 patients)?

    If there was no virus in the samples thanks to the BWG's careless handling, what exactly did he culture?

  4. SOC

    SOC ᗩᑎᑎIᙓ ᘜᔕᗩᙏᑭᙓᒪ

    Thanks, Bob! As always, I appreciate your summaries.
  5. Bob

    Bob I'm Annie Gsampel

    England (south coast)

    I agree Sam, that whatever way it's looked at, the results are poor.

    And, yes, the fact that some labs found the negative controls to be positive is (just) one of the reasons that I think the results are so weak.

    The study is more thorough than I thought it was going to be, and I was personally surprised at how poor the results are.

    There's just no results in it at all that would lead one to think that the XMRV research is solid.

    I've not yet been able to interpret all of the BWG study for myself. I've got to read it again.

    BTW Sam, I know you are cyber-stalking me really! ;)
    ixchelkali likes this.
  6. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Cornwall England
    I also need to re-read the paper, but I am still concerned about the significance now of those 'tests' commercially available which supposedly told patients they were 'XMRV positive'.

    You have a view on that at all Bob? Only it strikes me that all these labs in BWG were able to use any assay or detection method they liked (see Contamination also from Prof Racaniello). So surely they would have used the same assays etc. as were being used for patient testing?

    Anyway, it seems I have more (not less) reading to do as always. Almost a full-time job sometimes isn't it?! ;)
  7. redo

    redo Senior Member

    Good info omerbasket. I haven't read the whole thread. So my question might be answered elsewhere, but did you ask her for permission to report the correspondence?
  8. Daffodil

    Daffodil Senior Member

    bob...ohhhh...hehe it makes sense now thanks!

    isnt there a group who got 10 million to find our virus? surely someone will find it soon, between montoya, peterson, wpi, lipkin, etc etc. seems like an eternity to me but finally there is so much interest in us...all thanks to the WPI.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page