1. Patients launch $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!
New Exercise Study Brings Both Illumination and Questions
Simon McGrath looks at new objective evidence of abnormal response to exercise in ME/CFS patients, and the questions that researchers are still trying to answer ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

FDA and NIH confirm WPI XMRV findings (report of leaked presentation)

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by mingo, Jun 22, 2010.

  1. judderwocky

    judderwocky Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes:
    3
    SIGN THIS PETITION:

    http://healthcare.change.org/petitions/view/xmrv_allow_science_to_progress

    I've worked for several non profits doing media, petitions, online campaigns and stuff... I worked for HRC, Planned Parenthood, and Equality Tennessee...
    i wanted a petition that would do several things
    1) show our mostly (male) elected officials that this disease is also connected to prostate cancer
    2) show them there are studies backing us up - use this an opportunity to teach them one thing about the disease - there is a biological basis for it
    3) frame our desired action as a nutural continuation of scientific progress
    4) connect our issue to general public health.... (through other diseases, studies blah blah)
  2. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes:
    185
    Clay, Alabama
    another major factor in our favor is interest of drug companies, and surely testing labs. Drug companies have their money and will pursue an opportunity, no matter what these other studies do. Lyrica didn't need CDC. But they will need FDA. Well, FDA had the positive study. Surely, any drug company that can shut up the chronic complaining patients that just never go away will be welcomed by all, not just the patients.

    Even insurance companies would want to see us not going to doctors, multiple meds, multiple tests, etc.

    Another positive point, when they do come out with their announcement, it will be a much stronger statement coming from the two agencies, sorry, three, instead of two conflicting reports.

    Another positive point, we have some good journalism now. Amy has got her hooks into this story and has multiple inside sources who are talking. So all this is not happening behind closed doors. Thanks to Amy, we know what is going on and can hold them accountable.

    Thank you for taking up this issue, Amy. And keep up the good work.

    Tina
  3. judderwocky

    judderwocky Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes:
    3
    i saw the presentation on this.... and it turns out the Env protein is a horrible indicator for the tests.... I forget which section Ruscetti said they had to go with... but he showed two sets of data... they compiled one by looking at Env and the other at something like the Gag section.... not quite sure which it was... anyway.... they detected it at the same rates as the other labs using the Env ... like almost nothing... they said you can't use that section, but that the negative one's had used it...
  4. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    They may be trying to get a handle on this, but in the meantime progress is slowed, and the world is left to wildly speculate on what is happening. Completely ridiculous decision. It's their own damn fault for not dealing with this in the first place, and no excuse for not publishing both papers immediately.
  5. judderwocky

    judderwocky Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes:
    3
    exactly... how many people could be positively impacted by this research... it would allow the door to open on so many forms of treatment... but i suppose they feel that they have drug their feet on it for 30 years, why not a few more months. ERGH.
  6. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
    (emphasis added)

    John Hackett from Abbott Diagnostics is presenting today (June 30th) at the International Society of Blood Transfusion meeting in Berlin. The title of his presentation is "XMRV: Examination of Viral Kinetics, Tissue Tropism, and Serological Markers of Infection" . [1]

    Hackett gave a presentation with the same title at the 17th CROI (Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections) in Febuary of this year where he reported that Abbot's preliminary assay found that 0.1% of US blood donors were infected with XMRV. [2]

    I would really like to hear what he said today and find out if Abbott have revised that figure.

    Robert (H) Silverman, who co-discovered XMRV, and co-authored the original paper in Science, declares the following conflict of interest: "R.H.S. may receive royalty payments in the future from Abbott Laboratories, Inc." ie. I expect Abbott to produce a sensitive and specific test for XMRV infection.

    [1] http://www.isbt-web.org/berlin/files/wednesday.pdf
    [2] http://retroconference.org/2010/Abstracts/39393.htm
  7. fibrocat

    fibrocat

    Messages:
    2
    Likes:
    0
    Spain
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,148
    Likes:
    5,043
    Hmmm... that was one of the pieces of news which made me especially sceptical about an XMRV/CFS link. I'd forgotten about it with all the recent excitement - and I hadn't realised Silverman was involved. I wonder if there has been any change in their detection rate or if there's any way for us to find out what was said at this conference.
  9. jeffrez

    jeffrez Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes:
    628
    NY
    So that pretty much confirms it. CYA (cover your @ss) politics is running this show, not science or the scientific community. That is more than a little unsettling, but hopefully it will just be a minor bump in the road instead of a continued pattern of cover up, malfeasance and negligence, as has been the CDC's M.O. up to now.
  10. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes:
    230
    Western US
    Switzer, XMRV and Prostate Cancer - underwhelming - CROI -2010

    Here is W. Switzer's paper from CROI 2010. All he could find was "evidence of sequestered or cleared infections" in 2 of 165 prostate cancer tissue samples. In conclusion, he doesn't question his methodology, he questions the "prevalence and significance of XMRV in prostate cancer or other diseases." Switzer's prostate cancer paper was presented months after the Science paper.

    http://www.retroconference.org/2010/Abstracts/37160.htm

    Paper # 149
    Prevalence of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus in Prostate Cancer
    William Switzer*, H Jia, H Q Zheng, S Tang, and W Heneine
    CDC, Atlanta, GA, US
    Background: Recently, a xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus (XMRV) was identified by virus-generic microarray and polymerase chain reaction testing in 40% of prostate cancer tissues with the homozygous R462Q (QQ) variant of the antiviral RNase L enzyme. Two subsequent studies confirmed XMRV sequences in prostate cancers at a lower polymerase chain reaction prevalence (1.5% and 6%) independent of R462Q polymorphism. One of the studies also reported higher detection of XMRV proteins by immunohistochemistry in 23% of cancers. To further evaluate the prevalence of XMRV in prostate cancer and better define markers of infection, we developed new molecular and serologic assays and used them to screen tissue and plasma specimens from patients with prostate cancer.
    Methods: We developed both a xenotropic murine leukemia virus-based Western blot assay for antibody detection, and new gag, polymerase (pol), and envelope (env) polymerase chain reaction assays for sequence detection. To detect contamination with mouse DNA, we also designed a mouse-specific mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymerase chain reaction test. Following assay validation, prostate tissue (n = 162) and matching plasma (n = 120) from anonymous US prostate cancer patients were tested. Phylogenetic analysis by neighbor-joining methods was used to infer evolutionary relationships. RNase L R462Q polymorphism in all patients was determined using a commercial test.
    Results: Of 165 prostate tissues, 2 (1.2%) were positive by pol and env polymerase chain reaction and had undetectable mouse mtDNA. Phylogenetic analysis showed distinct sequences that clustered with other XMRV. Plasma from both persons (5956 and 6203) were negative by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction indicating absence of viremia. Both patients were Western blot-negative. Plasma from 118 additional polymerase chain reaction-negative patients tested Western blot negative. Of the patients, 45.1% were R462Q RR homozygotes, 45.6% RQ, and 9.3 % QQ. Person 5956 was RR homozygous; patient 6203 was heterozygous (RQ). Both had intermediate-grade tumors based on Gleason scoring.
    Conclusions: Our results demonstrate a low prevalence of XMRV sequences in prostate cancer patients that is not likely associated with R462Q RNase L genotype. Infection with XMRV is confirmed by phylogenetic analysis and absence of contaminating mouse DNA. The finding of undetectable antibodies and viremia in 2 patients is noteworthy and may reflect sequestered or cleared infections. More studies are needed to better understand the prevalence and significance of XMRV in prostate cancer or other diseases.

    "Hey Guys, I have an idea. Let's put the guy who couldn't find XMRV in prostate cancer patients in charge of the CFS study." I can't help but wonder if this brought a few chuckles amongst the same staff that posted the infamous "Dear Sirs, I'm Sick...." letter (posted on Osler's Web at http://www.oslersweb.com/files/dear_sirs_I_am_sick0001.pdf).
  11. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    cleared infections? in a retrovirus?
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,148
    Likes:
    5,043
    It's possible XMRV can be cleared. It's easy to assume it will be like HIV, but apparently XMRV is lacking a lot of the machinery which allows HIV to be so successful. It could even just be an opportunistic infection for CFS.

    I'm hoping for something really easy to cure!

    ps: Interesting to see the prostate abstract. Ta CBS.
  13. KnightofZERO

    KnightofZERO

    Messages:
    69
    Likes:
    1
    Oh, to be a fly in the wall in those internal meetings... Or video-conferences or whatever they do now :Retro wink:....

    It is worth mentioning that Heneine was the guy from the CDC most hostile (which is saying something) to attempting to confirm discovery of retrovirus in M.E./CFS by Dr. Elaine Defreitas so many years ago.

    I wonder, even at this late stage in the game, is the CDC just that determined to throw dirt on these findings or have they given up on that, and are now trying to look not incompetent? Oh to be a fly on the wall,
  14. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    It does look like he is saying it is gone, of course I know he is not, so what is he saying?
  15. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes:
    230
    Western US
    He says that it could also be sequestered. I'm assuming something akin to all of the active herpes (parvo, entero and other) viruses we have that in a healthy person are "sequestered" by a strong immune system.
  16. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    So is the CAA asking for these studies to be realised or not?
  17. VillageLife

    VillageLife Senior Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes:
    36
    United Kingdom
    Cfs central blog is saying that 80% are positive in the NIH/FDA study!!!! (good news then!)
  18. Jessrose21

    Jessrose21

    Messages:
    68
    Likes:
    0
    Farmington, NY
    I just emailed Wanda Jones to ask her if there's anything she can do to make sure the FDA/NIH study doesn't get buried. She always write back promptly so we'll see what she has to say, hopefully tomorrow.
  19. SunnyGal

    SunnyGal Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes:
    0
    The blog also says that the CDC found no XMRV in any of the blood they tested, including the known positive control samples. D-U-H!!!

    Well, that's what we figured, right? So, now they're scrambling to not look like idiots?
  20. jeffrez

    jeffrez Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes:
    628
    NY
    Haha - is that true? Not even in the positive samples? What a freaking charade.

    CDC = Completely Deficient in Credibility

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page