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.

Proposition to put the XMRV discussion here on a more profound and scientific basis

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Waverunner, Jun 6, 2011.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    But like I said earlier, if you ask 100 virologists, you will get 100 different answers, and they won't be any more informed answers than the information that is available on this forum.

    If you ask Coffin, he will say forget about XMRV, it doesn't exist (well, not in ME patients anyway), move on.
    If you ask Singh, she will say XMRV exists in prostate cancer, but there is no XMRV association with ME/CFS.
    If you ask Mikovits then she will say that she is very confident about her results.
    If you ask Lo, he will say that his research is still valid.
    If you ask Switzer, he will say that he is unable to detect XMRV in the blood, but that it is a human virus that needs further investigation.
    Some scientists might tell you that XMRV doesn't exist at all, or that it is purely a mouse virus, although I can't think of any who still have this view.
    etc etc etc

    There are not any definite answers right now, but only conflicting research studies. So the research continues.

    Until we have further and more solid evidence then things are just going to carry on as they are right now, with everybody arguing about what the facts are. At the moments the facts are often a matter of personal bias because there is conflicting evidence.

    Each of the seven points that I made in my earlier post was based on the evidence that is available to all of us.
    A virologist would base their opinions on the same evidence that I have based my information on. e.g. the published research papers, and related information. There is no other evidence available.
    I made my points as simple as possible, but if you want me to, I can point you towards the evidence that I based my points on, or I can explain my points in more detail.

    It seems to me that you want an authoritative voice to tell you what the facts are.
    But that's not going to happen any more than it happens on this forum.
  2. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes:
    1,946
    London
    Thanks Jemal, but unless the posts are made openly there is no way we can all benefit from this process. Hope it can be made public.

    Wave runner started this thread with a proposal and that doesn't help if things hidden.
  3. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    I don't want to hide things ukxmrv. I just think the person messaging me has a valid point and I would be interested in seeing him/her post the message. But if he/she doesn't want to, I will certainly post myself.
  4. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes:
    1,946
    London
    Jemal, I certainly don't think that you were trying to hide things. Sorry if my post give that impression. I do understand that it was a private message and of course you would respect that.
  5. Waverunner

    Waverunner Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Likes:
    841
    I don't know much detail about XMRV but I know that 100 virologists will not have a 100 different opinions. Well, of course their opinion will differ the more we go into detail but the main question is if they believe that XMRV is a pathogenic virus with causes harm to us humans and has a connection to CFS. In my eyes and what I conclude from the latest news about XMRV, probably 90 will be contra.

    I don't want an authoritative voice to tell me what the facts are. I want a science based discussion. Someone just wrote me a long message with counter points /the longest counter point was about the Alter/Lo study which according to many scientists and recent research is NO replication study) to every single of the 7 pro XMRV arguments, which Bob made. I don't know if people are scared to start a public discussion here but in my eyes there are not many contra XMRV people here who speak out publicly. I would love to hear RRM or drosha say their opinion about it.
  6. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes:
    1,946
    London
    Then why not ask you to post it so it can benefit us all Waverunner?

    There is no reason why people would want actual arguments to remain hidden. They themselves may want to remain behind the scenes for a variety of reasons including the fact that they simply cannot type much, handle stress or follow a thread.
  7. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    Waverunner, there are no answers yet. It's as simple as that.

    All I want is for the research to continue.

    What annoys me about people making statements that XMRV is a contaminant, is that that there is no conclusive evidence for this.

    However, there is evidence that XMRV is a real human virus, and that it might be associated with ME.
    There must be about 20 to 40 published papers now that provide evidence towards the XMRV being a human virus.

    Even if Alter's research does not confirm the WPI's research (which isn't Alter's opinion), then we still need to investigate the association between PMRV's and ME. So far we have a study that says that XMRV is associated with ME, and a study that says very similar MLV-related viruses are associated with ME. I don't see how we can separate the two.

    And our knowledge about XMRV is growing and evolving every day/week/month/year.
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    Well, what do you think is going on here then?

    Like I said, I'm happy to give you references to the published research that I've based all of my statements on.

    I think what you probably need is for the whole XMRV story to be presented to you in a balanced and accessible way.
  9. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    I would like someone to please provide me with one single piece of conclusive evidence that XMRV is contamination.

    One piece?
  10. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Messages:
    855
    Likes:
    170
    England
    Bob, that piece you quote is from Waverunner, isn't it?

    You won't find one piece of evidence that HGRV was contamination in Lombardi or Lo, because there isn't any. There's guesswork and conjecture (is that tortology?) and assumptions, but there is no proof. Both the Mikovits lab and the Lo lab have stated categorically that they take and have always taken extraordinary measures to prevent contamination. Mikovits has never had the 22rv1 cell line in her lab.

    Similarly, there is no hard evidence that XMRV is a recombinant from a lab event in 1992. Again, there is conjecture, phylogenic trees drawn with imagination, hunts for MLV's with partial sequences that match parts of the XMRV virus, and the assumption that they combined, without even the knowledge of which mouse strain was used in the hypothetical event in the unnamed lab.

    Re the quote from Waverunner, personally I have no desire to see RRM or Drosha posting more of their dogma here. They do enough of that elsewhere on the web.

    Annette Whittemore stated in Invest in ME Conference that the WPI has an open mind about the causation of ME, and so do I. However, I find that the science is more rigorous and believable on the HGRV positive side.
  11. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    Yes, thanks for pointing that out jace, I've corrected my post now.

    Thank you jace... That's precisely the point that I was making... Thank you for the interesting answer.
  12. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    439
    Raleigh, NC
    Both are right. Infections do seem to be able to spur auto-immune responses - that is not in doubt. It could be that a antigen in the pathogen looks very much like a protein in the human body - causing the immune system to mount an attack against both. I think its also possible that an infection starts some sort of immune cascade that goes berserk so to speak; the immune system knows its under attack but is not sure from where and starts attacking back in all sorts of different directions - sometimes hitting the body. I think there is some suggestion of this with NK cells and NK cell exhaustion.
  13. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    439
    Raleigh, NC
    Getting expert advice is difficult but more would be very valuable. I've talked to a couple of researchers but only a couple. Dr. Satterfield, for instance, has a history with CFS and in conversation is very balanced - so I've used him. Dr. Mikovits has, at times, replied to emails. Dr. Racaniello has at times...and has Dr. Miller....but the pool is not a large one :)

    I wish I had, from the beginning, tried to hunt up some retrovirologists who have no skin in the game who would've followed along this issue with us..
  14. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    I have not heard back from the person who sent me a private message, so I will just post this myself.

    I said that there were no studies that directly address the Lo/Alter study. That's not true as there's now at least one study that addresses the Lo/Alter study:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0019953

    If I understand correctly, they are not definitely saying the Lo/Alter study is about contamination, but they say it's a possibility and they give a warning that reagants might be contaminated.

    This study popped up in pubmed this week.

    As a layman I have no idea what worth this study has, I just wanted to correct something I said.
  15. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    """""""""""
    Science. 2009 Oct 23;326(5952):585-9. Epub 2009 Oct 8.

    Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

    Lombardi VC, Ruscetti FW, Das Gupta J, Pfost MA, Hagen KS, Peterson DL, Ruscetti SK, Bagni RK, Petrow-Sadowski C, Gold B, Dean M, Silverman RH, Mikovits JA.

    Using the Whittemore Peterson Institutes (WPI) national tissue repository, which contains samples from well-characterized cohorts of CFS, we isolated nucleic acids from PBMCs and assayed the samples for XMRV gag sequences by nested PCR (5, 6). Of the 101 CFS samples analyzed, 68 (67%) contained XMRV gag sequence.
    """"""""""""
  16. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    I can't work out what the message is in that post Sam?
  17. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    Hi Bob,

    Yeah, I'm in a kinda elliptical mood tonight ...

    In post 54 of the thread you appeared to be arguing that PCR lacked the sensitivity to detect the presence of XMRV in a person's blood, yet that was exactly the technique used by Dr. M in the Lombardi paper.

    Sam
  18. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    I hope you enjoy your elliptical mood Sam! :D

    It's all explained in my post. Lombardi et al did not use single round PCR for the main part of their study. The used nested PCR along with other methodologies.
  19. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    (Continuing in an elliptical spirit ... [​IMG] )

    That's my point -- Erlwein, Switzer, Satterfield, Furuta, Shin and Knox also used nested PCR and found nothing.
  20. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes:
    10,371
    England, UK
    I was replying to a specific point raised in a previous post, and it looks like I over-simplified my discussion.

    To answer your point, I'll refer to you Annette Whittemore's list of differences in the methodologies:
    http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/06/comparison-of-methods-for-detection-and.html

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page