Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by V99, Mar 31, 2010.
Roll on, donkey, roll!
Another potential positive of a pharma getting involved is that if that they find XMRV in, 'only', say, 67% of samples, they may still trial any subsequent drugs on the 33% that tested negative (because that would still be a huge target market). If the drugs treat positives and negatives successfully, then it may support the contention that XMRV is simply more difficult to find in the negatives - or that something else organic is at play which can be controlled by the drugs. This might help keep some/all of the negatives out of the 'somataform' bucket that many are concerned about.
Interesting observation Fred.
Looks like we have a runner in the Donkey Derby folks!
And I saw that they are also marketing drugs that contains AZT, so that really goes in the way of them wanting to find XMRV.
Still, I know they also make antidepressants, such as Wellbutrin, so I still doesn't say my theory is wrong, but I also think that it's much more likely that they do want to find XMRV.
If patients are diagnosed with an organic illness, they may be more willing to accept anti-depressants to help them cope with it - and so pharma has two income streams - although is probably too sophisticated a rationale right now.
The more likely rationale is that anti-depressants are getting a bad press and, if that market shrinks, they will need another one to maintain revenues.
I think its sooooo intriguing that GSK would start this now. Their researchers have to be talking to other researchers. Do they have some encouraging background information?
A great start for the Biobank! And really - good for the CFIDS Association; they got the patients together and presumably went to GSK and said we have the patients, we have the samples - all you need to do is test them. That's what the Bio Bank is all about - fast, efficient research.
Seems like good news, I thought I remembered some intimation that big pharma may be getting involved, possibly from one of Judy's talks?
I wonder what is meant by 'similar' in the above statement, rather than the same?
GSK is a large producer of vaccines of all kinds - Rotarix is one of them, and March 22, 2010 the FDA found that this vaccine was contaminated with DNA material from porcine circovirus 1, a virus from pigs that is not known to cause disease in humans or animals http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/22/rotavirus.vaccine/index.html.
A pig virus in a childrens vaccine? In 2010? Not very convincing. What might have happend there from 1970 - 2010?
So, if ME/CFS = XMRV and XMRV comes from MuLV (in rodents) - how did it come into human beings - possibly in 3,7 % of the healthy population?
Well, 30-40 years of a very slow worldwide epidemic casued by contaminated vaccines?
It might be that GSK will find themself in a double position over the next weeks and months, as this story unravels...
I think it's almost impossible to have CFS pateints with characteristics same as the Science paper - Because that might mean, for example, that if one has Hemoglobin 14.4, than the other must have 14.4 too. I don't know if it's possible to take a patient that has fatigue for more than 6 months (this particular one has it for 25 years) and another patient that has fatigue for more than 6 months (this particular one has it for 1.5 years) and say that "they have the SAME characteristics". Am I wrong?
Anyone check the health insurance co's share prices today?
Excellent point Bob!
Too late for regrets Adam, I've done 2.
But that's it for the now. We'll have to share them.
Not sure I've ever done cartwheels in a sleet shower before. Had more sense in my youth than I do now.
This really is dramatic news. I was telling someone that this, probably, will be the best funded "CFS" study ever by 100x.
Gee whiz, I don't think these arch-capitalists just throw away money. Someone must think there's potential.
I maintain my position that even if xmrv isn't the ultimate, ultimate root of this disease (who knows?) it can only be good for us to smack it down.
This is good news. Finally a replication study. Also, the British Medical Journal might be regretting their aggressive position soon, and might backtrack if the study shows up a lot of XMRV positive patients, because they are not going to want to upset such a big drug company without solid evidence (as they might lose money because of it, not because they care or anything). They would also know that they won't get away with the innuendo approach and mud-slinging at the big players, as they were doing with the WPI.
I always felt that the only way we would get ME away form the weasels was if someone else thought they could make a lot of money if we had a PHYSICAL illness.
If the drug companies realise how many of us there are so how much money they could make, even if XMRV is not the answer they might do research to see what is.
I have also worried that XMRV might explain CSF but ME is actually a long term Coxsackie B infection as they thought long ago. So everyone with XAND would go away and leave us with the "tired all the time" lot.
But if a drug company saw that there were still a lot XMRV did not account for they might take us on.
I want to be exploited by a drug company!!!!!! :Retro smile::Retro smile::Retro smile:
This is great news, regardless of the outcome of their study. Even if they do not find XMRV, they will have started on a journey to help find solutions for CFS. And GSK has the resources to figure out what is actually going on in ALL of the XMRV studies. And maybe this will spark an interest, somebody in the medical/parmaco community has to be smart enough to realize what a large untapped market we represent.
Right. They have shareholders to whom they answer. They don't want to chase a red herring.
Btw, GSK is a British company--but the UK has a magic anti-xmrv forcefield: what gives??
Pan-global profit protential breaks down all known force fields.
Ain't that the TRUTH!!!!!!...but maybe now the drive for profit will finally benefit us ; $
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.