Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Esther12, Aug 23, 2010.
Holmes criteria would have been used in 93!!
I absolutely agree George. It's almost as if some shocking secret has been uncovered, something that nobody believed possible, an 'Oh My GOD' moment, and then disbelief, more disbelief, a shake of the head, a pinch of the cheeks, a slap across the face.....no it's still there the elephant in the room and it's sat on Bill Reeves.
Kind regards, Mark
I love it Mark!
I wonder how you start proceedings! Should we make a list. We all know who'd get our number one and two on the Hague bound train.
Taken from the paper:
Of the 41 patient samples, 29 were collected from 25 patients by one of us (A.L.K.) at the
Chronic Fatigue Research Center, Brigham and Womens Hospital (Boston,
MA). Four of the CFS patients also had blood obtained on a second occasion
∼2 y later. Most of the patients were from the New England area; none were
related, and virtually none had any regular social contact. Each of the 25
patients was systematically evaluated with a standardized history (supplemented
by a patient questionnaire), physical examination, and battery of
laboratory tests. Each met the 1988 CDC criteria for CFS, and 21 also met the
1994 CDC criteria. The average age of the patients at the time of venepuncture
was 44.4 y; 4 were male and 21 were female.
ROFLMTO!!! that was a good one. Especially right now cause I'm finding this paper to be an inconclusive slog. Anybody else have problems finding a diffinitive answer. Cause right now it just contridicts everything we have been told to date.
is it my imagination - or ignorance - but it looks to me like they classify the MLV's they found as XMRV's - all of them - ie it looks like they imply that MLV's are a subset of XMRV's - not the other way round
what have I misunderstood as I also understand the paper to state that 0% XMRV was found in CFS - both statements clearly cant both be right - or can they?
LETS PARTY!!! :Retro smile:
Hi, Judy identifies the problem with the failed studies was they were using primers to find cloned xmrv, not that in patients, and it was too specific given the range of virus present in real patients. Bye, Alex
Yeah, I'm getting the same message, no XMRV here folks only MLV's, two problems, prior to this MLV's were believed to clear the blood stream in 10 day's or less, however they state here that
So that throws that long held theory out the window. . . . . . . .I think. Second, they seem to be saying that MLV's may be related to "Types' of CFS but I don't see where they define what the heck a Type is. . .
So 6 different MLV strains produce 2 types of CFS?
I'll just throw out my best attempt at understanding it.
XMRV's full name was, and is still, "xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus". We just dropped the "L" when abbreviating it, otherwise it would be XMLRV, or, since they're removing the "retro" part with the MLV abbreviation, it'd be XMLV.
So to try to state it another way, XMRV is a kind of MLV, as it has MLV as a major part of its name. THis study seems to be saying there is variance among different types of MLV, XRMV being one of them.
Again, the abbreviations make it more confusing than it has to be:
MLV = Murine Leukemia Virus-related virus
XMRV = Xenotropic Murine Leukemia (Retro)Virus-related virus
MLV strains = all types of Murine Leukemia Virus-related virus, thus including XMRV.
Hope that clears up any confusion, and moreover I hope I'm correct in this info!
Of course it's really a simple question of whether you actually want to get to the bottom of things, or whether you just want to disprove a specific result that you don't believe. The negative studies looked for something very specific, but if they had been determined to figure out what was really going on (as Dr Alter was) they would have tested against a variety of sequences and basically looked a bit harder. But they were - at the very least - blinded by their own prejudice.
This is very promising. Since this is such a poor cohort, in terms of Canadian Criteria, it means that XMRV is very prevalent in most of us.
Just thinking that it might be interesting to look back and check up on when "XMRV and related MLVs" became "MLV Related Gene Sequences". My impression is that 3 months ago, per the leaks, Dr Alter would have described it the first way...and really, when XMRV mutates, how much does it have to mutate before it is no longer XMRV? Also, how long is a piece of string?
When is a replication study a replication study?
I've read and heard a lot about this being a replication study of Lombardi et al., but from the actual Lo/Alter paper it states:
"In sum, none of the four studies that have
failed to confirmthe PCRevidence reported by Lombardi et al. (3),
nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study."
I'm a little confused Are they saying that this paper is not actually a replication study at all?
I think I get it, it mostly pulls together at the end. Polytropic rather than Xenotropic MLV's with higher mutation rates than previously though are present in CFS. Still not understanding the CFS1 and CFS2 thing can't figure out where they got that from. Will keep looking though. So this is what and why they want to rename it. It's not really XMRV.
I was a little concerned about this statement however, since following this could lead to further confusion down the road
I do get that there seems to be a set up for those folks not HGRV positive. Like Dr. Bateman pointed out CFS diagnosis can be given by lazy doctors for medication problems, hormone imbalances and other things the GP doesn't want to be bothered with.
that was previously my understanding - however it's not the way the paper is talking about them - at least to my unscientific understanding - they seem to be sayign that the MLV's they found are XMRV's - which is fine and dandy - I dont know enough about it to judge - XMRV is a MLV - MLV's closely related to it could be grouped as XMRV's - or not - I dont know
but they also say that they found no (0%) XMRV in CFS subjects
my head hurts
This must be part of what the press is picking up on
Lovely fun, good news is that there are other positive studies out there.
Oooh...that's a good way to look at it. But also, the other way round as well...
So these MLVs that Alter found - are they Xenotropic? Yes, if they came from mice and are now in humans.
So do they fit the name "XMRV" as expanded by Dainty above? Yes, it seems to me they do.
So are these MLVs XMRVs? I can't see why not...
The only sense in which they aren't variants of XMRV is a question of semantics.
It's no wonder everyone is confused, because one again, it seems very much to me that it's just a matter of playing games with semantics in order to reinforce existing beliefs and power structures. I think we're used to that...
ETA: In other words, which of these statements is wrong?
XMRV is a MLV
MLVs are XMRVs
They're P's not X's (grins) In other words they are Polytropic rather than Xenotropic. Other than that I find it rather confusing. (grins) Cause either way they jumped species and now we got problems.
hmm..I'm mad so my immune system is compromised - so I get ill - with a retrovirus that further mucks up my immune systems - so that even if I am no longer mad then I still have a retovirus playing games with me - so how, exactly. even assuming the whole problem is started with me have childhood trauma's or being neurotic or even straight mad - just how - would CBT/GET help? even if it worked and magically made me "sane" I'd still have a retrovirus
so even if XMRV or whatever isnt the cause of ME, it just gets in because I'm loony toons - the fact that I now have it means I am not going to get better without MEDICAL intervention - making me "sane" or teaching me "coping skills" wont cure a retrovirus Simon!!!
causation is no longer relevant to the issue of CBT/GET
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.