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!
Give ME the Money
Graham McPhee spells out some of the cold, hard facts about the dismal state of ME research and politics, and has some suggestions as to what we can do about it ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Lack of Detection of XMRV in Seminal Plasma from HIV-1 Infected Men in The Netherland

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by V99, Aug 10, 2010.

  1. IamME

    IamME Too sick for an identity

    Messages:
    110
    Likes:
    5
    Maybe that's a problem? No-one is infallible.

    As I am sure psychiatry loves it when people tell patients to shut up... doesn't prove anything.

    I hadn't said I expected anything else. None of that explains on why you agreed that the quote about the WPI was "offensive", so I'm not surprised you sidestep what you are incapable of defending.
     
  2. Martlet

    Martlet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes:
    3
    Near St Louis, MO
    If you need specifics, such phrases as "get over yourself" and "are you, some hotshot lawyer for incompetent researchers or are you just naturally pompous?" are personally insulting and are against forum rules. The rest of the message was filled with sarcasm. Now you may find that acceptable behaviour, but it is not acceptible in this forum and this is my final word on that post.

    And saying to me "so I'm not surprised you sidestep what you are incapable of defending" is also offensive. As Cort said some months ago, moderators will not be subjected to these types of attack. Please see your inbox.
     
  3. thegodofpleasure

    thegodofpleasure Player in a Greek Tragedy

    Messages:
    138
    Likes:
    50
    Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
    PlosOne strikes again

    Under the sub-heading "Ethics" I read the following:

    So, the 25 heterosexual men were already on anti-retroviral treatment then ? :confused:

    Little wonder that they didn't exhibit any signs of XMRV infection.

    Also, a very small cohort, which, on the basis of background XMRV prevalence rate - 4% - could only have been expected to have yielded two XMRV+ve patients

    PlosOne appears to have played another blinder !!!- what on earth do the Peer Reviewers think they were doing when they allowed this little gem to slip through their rather badly torn net ? :Retro mad:

    TGOP
     
  4. thegodofpleasure

    thegodofpleasure Player in a Greek Tragedy

    Messages:
    138
    Likes:
    50
    Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
    A better title for the article

    The problem with the publication of "quickie" research papers like this one, is that the title can so often be misleading. Hence, if you don't read all of the detailed stuff, you can easily be drawn into making the wrong conclusions

    Might it therefore be appropriate to rename this study :

     
  5. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,863
    Likes:
    12,453
    South of England
    90% of heterosexual men were taking anti-retrovirals, but none of the homosexual men were. (see the quotes from the study at the bottom of this post.)

    I think what might be more relevant here is that this study, like all the other negative ones we've seen so far, was just unable to detect XMRV in the types of samples which they used, using the methodology which they used.


    A very good point. Such a small number of samples could be statistically insignificant. The researchers do not mention this in their conclusion.


    From what I understand, researchers have to pay PlosOne to publish their studies, so there might not be much inclination for the journal to do very stringent peer reviewing.


    Quotes from the paper regarding anti-retroviral drugs:

    I think that the authors are indicating that, with regards to levels of viral RNA in plasma, there might be a lower limit for detecting XMRV, just as there is with HIV (which seems obvious). It's a shame that the authors are not more explicit about this in their conclusions, and don't explicitly explain this as a possible reason for failure to detect XMRV.


    So only 5% of the heterosexual samples were testing positive for HIV-1. And these samples were all from HIV+ patients. So what chance is there for finding XMRV at this detection rate, when you'd only expect 4% of patients to be XMRV+ ?!
     
  6. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,863
    Likes:
    12,453
    South of England
    I think that they missed out a possible reason for not detecting XMRV... That they were using an inadequate methodology.
    I notice that they froze the plasma samples to store them which, as far as I remember, the WPI had to stop doing with their samples when looking for XMRV.

    Also, as far as I understand, the only detection method employed was PCR, which as we know, is not the most successful methodology for detecting XMRV.
    I don't fully understand the WPI's methodology, but I would hazard a guess that this study doesn't come anywhere close to it.

    Also, as thegodofpleasure mentioned in a previous post, the statistical likelihood of finding XMRV, in non-CFS patients, in such a small number of samples, where only 25% of samples (from HIV+ patients) tested HIV+, is almost zero.

    This demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding about the subject because, as we know, it is not possible for a person to have antibodies for a lab contaminant, and the genetic sequencing of XMRV shows that it is not a mouse virus, and the virus has been observed infecting human cells, and the genetic sequences of XMRV have variability which doesn't happen in contaminants, etc. etc. etc.


    They were looking for the type of XMRV which is found in prostate cancer, and this might not be the most prevalent strain of XMRV.


    In my opinion, this is a strange and slightly dangerous conclusion, considering the limitations of the study.

    Taking everything into account, these authors do not make any serious conclusions about XMRV at all, in my opinion...
    This was just a small scale investigative research study, probably born out of curiosity, but not out of expertise in XMRV virology.
     
  7. Rivotril

    Rivotril Senior Member

    Messages:
    154
    Likes:
    0
    Van der Meer/Kuppeveld get assisted by their Dutch friends from Amsterdam...
    -Indeed still coming with the same Lake Tahoe crap (don't they read Science, where this misunderstanding was explained my mikovits/ruscetti)
    -and again the main researcher is an "experimental Virologist" (Not a retorovirologist)
    And same crap journals (PlosOne, Retrovirogy) in al this neg studies

    Again total no cooperation: if they state that XMRV prelevance is lower in europe, let them test some US samples too...or ask at least WPI for some samples to be sure that their methodology is okay..

    just some more crap to back up the recent CDC shit...

    we may be happy that:
    the co author of the paper who found the first human retrovirus and is 30 years in retrovirology (ruscetti), the author who " discovered" XMRV (Silverman) are on "our"side, and most likely also mr Alter (co discoverer hep c etc).
    These are distinguished people in (retro)virolgy land, instead of people like kuppeveld, and this amsterdam bunch of experimental newby's

    how could this crap still pass peer reviews?????

    after all those weasly kuppeveld cdc etc shit...

    why not use methods discribed by wpi? why no culturing

    pfff in kuppeveld-like words :

    i'm done with THEM
     
  8. Rivotril

    Rivotril Senior Member

    Messages:
    154
    Likes:
    0
    http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012040

    there is the possibility to comment on this study...i see one person has already made a comment

    Would be nice to see a Parvo-unraveling the kuppeveld-study-like comment here..instead of all reacting with small comments..
    one great fundamental and systematic analysis would be much better then just 100 small reactions from "complaining " me/cfs patients
     
  9. redo

    redo Senior Member

    Messages:
    830
    Likes:
    89
  10. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes:
    5,221
    Sth Australia
    nods yeah... and that is why im not going to comment there.
     
  11. thegodofpleasure

    thegodofpleasure Player in a Greek Tragedy

    Messages:
    138
    Likes:
    50
    Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
    Yes, I would agree with you wholeheartedly, if we could trust that the conclusions drawn from this study are actually valid.
    Unfortunately, we can't
     
  12. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes:
    6,446
    USA
    Agreed. It's hard to know the general intent or flavor of a study by just selecting individual sentences. A fundamental and systematic analysis would indeed be much more valuable.
     
  13. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes:
    6,446
    USA
    Actually, I said that I think verbal abuse of anyone is counterpoductive and that destructive and hostile criticism of people who are trying to help us, even if they're not perfect, is likely to limit the number of high-powered researchers willing to get involved with ME/CFS. I stand by that opinion.

    I don't know where you got your interpretation of my comments. Your own mind, I suppose.
     
  14. Martlet

    Martlet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes:
    3
    Near St Louis, MO
    Moderator: Please don't continue this quarrel. The issue has been dealt with.
     
  15. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    What allegation?
     
  16. Rivotril

    Rivotril Senior Member

    Messages:
    154
    Likes:
    0
    it is a LIE

    wpi told 100000000000000 times by now that the 101 samples came not from lake tahoe solely

    and after that: Ruscetti/Mikovits, after telling this 1000000000000000 times, even answered questions from Kuppeveld and co in Science where the samples came from, that they came from entire usa/canada

    after all this, nobody can be serious to put this outdated crap again in a paper........

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."- Goebbels

    maybe this fellow has inspired the Amsterdam researchers...


    only goal of this study:

    -xmrv wasnt there in me/cfs
    -it isn't there in other people in the netherlands
    -it is not transmittable by sexual contact/blood (HIV patients dont get it, and they got HIV, and if it was transmissive they would also have XMRV) (this crap is not my way of logical reasoning but that of these "scientists")

    so (kuppeveld and this study together) we don't need a blood ban in netherlands/europe,

    because: blood ban means XMRV is serious, big news and panic. and XMRV in CFS means the end of the weasly/van der meer school
     
  17. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    Ze peeps iz Nederlandische, not ze nativ-speekern. If they'd said "has been" it would be better, but it's awfully rare to be perfect in a second language and this is par for the course in a middling journal (only Nature is said to fix every single grammatical mistake via editing). Maybe I'm sensitive to this because I've been trying to learn German for 11 years, with pitiful results.

    The other mistake about the source of samples is non-trivial to be sure. You certainly don't want to see an error like that in a paper, it is usually avoided... but it sometimes happens. Are they the first to come up with this mistake or might they be propagating it from another source - wasn't there a "thing" bout this before?
     
  18. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Yes, it is a lie that keeps getting repeated. I forget who started it, but it appeared in the BMJ article from McClure & Wessely.
     
  19. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    Re: peer review in PLoS One - PLoS One is not reviewed in any normal sense. In-house editors, who are not specialists in what they are reviewing, review the papers briefly just to make sure they are not TOTALLY cheezey.

    Personally I like it that way - a lot. Scientists moan about peer review all the time - about cliques of established reviewers blocking new ideas. I suspect that this complaint has some merit. Everyone in research knows that PLoS One is non-refereed. That's good. No false pretenses. It would be best if it remains the only one. But even if other non-refereed journals start up, people are going to make convenient lists of them all over the net, and I think everyone in research will be aware of them.
     
  20. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Yes, there is no perfect review system, humans get in the way. So it is a good idea to have a variety of journals out there. I wonder if they could use robots in the future.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page