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!
Ergonomics and ME/CFS: Have You Hurt Yourself Without Knowing It?
Having a chronic illness like ME/CFS can make it hard to avoid problems that come from bad ergonomics. Jody Smith has learned some lessons the hard way ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Lengthy article on the NCI website about XMRV origin

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Jemal, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    There is a lengthy article on the NCI website about their recent research into the origin of XMRV. This is the conclusion:

    Also, I think this is a nice quote:

    Lots more content:
    http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/061411/page5
     
  2. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    So many things that can't be explained by the contamination hypothesis. They might be right, but before they haven an explanation for all these things, i just feel like WTF???
     
  3. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Btw, the WPI in the past has gotten some criticism for allegedly being too quick in drawing conclusions, acting in an unscientific way, etc.

    Where are those voices now? In regards to the other side?
     
  4. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    And one more remark...

    Who cares if you get exposed to a mouse carrying this virus, if they say it's everywhere in labs, contaminating all these samples? And once it's in lab workers, it could go anywhere from there... I don't believe this is what happened, but i don't think it's mice one would have to worry about, so why mention them and not the much more obvious route?
     
  5. Marty

    Marty Senior Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes:
    17
    Excellent article and video, not lengthy. If you read one thing on the Coffin debate, this should be it. It is science and in the language patients can understand, unlike the paranoia and false information often seen on the forums. It is only Coffin's part of the debate and Judy has her contribution to the debate, as will Lipkin, etc.; but it is honest debate.
     
  6. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I'm no scientist, but i actually don't think it's scientific to talk as if you know the truth when there are so many question marks still around and so much your hypothesis can't explain (referring to the article mentioned). But i think it's interesting to also hear views like yours, Marty. I would say if you want to read one thing explaining Coffin's view, then read this. But not if you want to read one thing on the entire debate, that would be very one sided then.
     
  7. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    It's also quite presumtuous to say "the field now has an answer". This means the Drs. Ruscetti and Silverman (and many others) are not part of the field... Hmm... Also i don't see how you can say "there's no evidence that this virus was ever in patients", if you look at all the labs that have found it and the original Lombardi et al. paper. Is that not evidence? It's not absolutely proven yet, but i don't think you can just deny this evidence, because you have found other evidence that contradicts it.
     
  8. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    I thought it was pretty lengthy for an article, but I don't see that as negative.

    Yes, I don't think this answer is final. Dr. Goff said the same in this article:

    So, the answer is definitive (for some)... at the moment :D
     
  9. justy

    justy Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,673
    Likes:
    2,874
    U.K
    I havent read the link yet, but one thing that keeps bothering me is this: How can it be a contaminant and not in any patients if there is widespread agreement that XMRV IS a real virus in prostate cancer? It seems to me they want to have their cake and eat it. Firstly they say its "just" a contaminant, then that its been "made" from cell lines in labs and could be sort of real (but not in people) then they are lso happy for it to be a real virus in prostate cancer. Almost any expalanation so long as its not in the people with M.E/CFS
    Hmm pretty fishy.
     
  10. Marty

    Marty Senior Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes:
    17
    You are quite right, Eric; I edited my post to say that if you read only one thing about Coffin's view, this is an excellent review in lay terms. You don't have to be a scientist to understand it.

    You really do have to be a scientist to present valid counterarguments, despite the pages of misinformation you read on the internet.
     
  11. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Yes, if "we" means their side then that's ok with me. But if it is supposed to mean "the field", then i don't think it's right to say that.
     
  12. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Thanks, Marty. I agree that this is a problem, that for laypeople it's very difficult to understand these things. I'm a layman myself. And i think it's even dangerous if we try to do the science ourselves. On the other hand, due to the neglect and the aggressive and hard to understand tactics by certain people and organisations, we are to some degree forced to deal with all the stuff ourselves.

    So my take is that we should try to find the scientists and doctors we trust (but not blindly) and make sure they have the resources they need to be able to work. And also protect them against attacks, if necessary. Of course we can and should also follow the science, those who feel up to it and like it, but not forget that those of us who are laymen are not really qualified and might misunderstand things (it even happens to scientists :rolleyes:).
     
  13. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I think there are different groups, with different views. Some say it's always contamination and never in people, others believe it might be associated with pc but not with ME/CFS. I agree about some of it looking fishy...
     
  14. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    I have the feeling they are groping around in the dark. Which is fine, as this might be a new avenue of research. I think it's too premature to close the book on XMRV/MLV's (there are several positive studies and they can't all be explained away) and I don't understand why some scientists say they have the final answer. To me this doesn't look too scientific...
     
  15. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes:
    11,273
    South of England
    While the NCI scientists are busy patting themselves on the back, and congratulating themselves, and saying how wonderful they are for conclusively proving (almost) that XMRV is a contaminant, XMRV research and knowledge continues to grow and evolve.

    The whole NCI article, and all of the conclusions made, have already been challenged by the CDC in a study by Switzer.
    http://www.retrovirology.com/content/8/S1/A235
    Conclusion:
    "Given the evidence of inter-tropic recombination in MuLV, detection and classification of recombination in XMRV using different MuLV tropism prototypes should be interpreted with caution ... These results suggest that identification of parental strains of the potential recombinants is difficult and that recombination in the highly genetically related MuLV have been occurring for some time."


    This CDC study points out that, contrary to Paprotka's, Coffin's and Pathak's conclusions, there are a myriad of ways that XMRV could have been created, and that the prostate cancer cell line might just be one example of many possible recombination events. Switzer draws very different conclusions to Paprotka et al., and directly challenges their study's conclusion of a 'one in a trillion' chance of a recombination event.

    The following extract from the NCI article has been directly challenged by Switzer's study:

    But even if XMRV is a result of a recombination in that specific prostate cancer cell line, the admission that it has been travelling around as contamination in labs, ever since it was created, gives us a clue to a possible route of transmission into the human population, either via vaccines or a similar route, as this article explains:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70081-0/fulltext

    Another issue, which flies in the face of the NCI's article, is the evidence that XMRV has indeed infected the human population in at least 5 positive prostate cancer studies.


    The 'proof' of contamination given in the following extract from the NCI article, has been challenged by other scientists...

    The challenges are:
    1. The transmission XMRV could be via vaccines or similar contact with lab artifacts.
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70081-0/fulltext
    2. The mutation rate of XMRV could be similar to HTLV, which has extremely low variability.
    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...it-can-explain-XMRV-s-low-degree-of-mutations


    It might also be the case that the original prostate cancer sample had minuscule and undetectable levels of XMRV in it, which then flourished and replicated in the cell line, making it subsequently possible to detect. (The authors assume that they would be able to detect extremelly low copy rates of XMRV.)
    The NCI article says: "...XMRV replicates well in culture..." which would confirm this as a possibility.
    Some prostate cancer research (Urisman et al. - see quotes below) has found that XMRV is not found in the actual prostate tumour itself (malignant prostatic epithelial cells), but in the surrounding tissue (stromal cells), so could this have led to there only being minuscule amounts of XMRV in the original prostate cancer sample in which no XMRV was detected?


    So, yes, this study shows us that XMRV could have been formed from a recombination of mouse viruses. But that's all it tells us. These scientists should do a bit more reading.


    Here's another questionable extract from the NCI article:
    Well, where on earth has this information come from?
    XMRV research is only just beginning, so how can he possibly know what the behaviour of XMRV in the wild would be?
    What is his evidence on which he is basing this statement?
    I thought I had seen evidence of XMRV infecting human cells (1), and of cell lines being created out of XMRV-infected human tissue (2):
    (1) http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-8-s1-a208.pdf
    (2) http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-8-s1-a230.pdf

    I'm afraid that this article get more ridiculous the more I read:

    Sorry? Has he not seen the 5 positive prostate cancer studies?

    This strikes me as a very unbalanced and unscientific article, based on a single scientific study which has reached flawed conclusions, as demonstrated by Switzer of the CDC, and others.
     
  16. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes:
    11,273
    South of England
    Well said eric.
    There is contradictory evidence at the moment, but not 'no evidence'.

    I agree with you eric.

    But you seem more far more clued up and informed on the subject than some of the scientists!
     
  17. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,432
    Likes:
    2,947
    Couchland, USA
    To get a better picture of the NCI (as well as FDA, NIH, state medical boards, Pharma, etc)
    watch this sobering documentary. It, like "Under Our Skin", could be a documentary of M.E. and XMRV
    if you just substitute the names of some of the players, patents, pathogens, and patients. It is really worth watching,
    as it spells out precisely the tactics being used today.
    http://vimeo.com/24821365
     
  18. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Thanks, Bob. Probably our community is an amazing example for what people are capable of doing if they are forced to by the cirumstances...
     
  19. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    I agree with your great comments Bob and Eric.

    Also in the latest Switzer article, didn't it say that he had found more variability in XMRV strains than previously reported? Maybe you alluded to this and i missed it.

    Marty; some of the overreaching in conclusions are so eggregious, that I don't believe one has to be a scientist to validly argue against them- one has to simply read about the background and be able to think logically.
     
  20. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes:
    11,273
    South of England
    Thanks Justin, that's a good point... Switzer did say that... I had missed out that point... Actually, I'd forgotten all about his significant conclusions in that study.

    In his study, Switzer specifically says that the XMRV sequence variation that he has detected is "consistent with virus evolution during spread and persistence." Switzer's evidence and conclusions directly contradicts the NCI's conclusions in relation to there being no variety in any XMRV sequences. Switzer indicates there is evidence of virus evolution expected during normal human infection in the wild.

     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page