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!
Can You Come for a Visit? My ME/CFS Says No
My daughter and son-in-law just had a baby last week. We are thrilled. But we won't be able to see the baby or hold her any time soon. We won't be able to take over little gifts or help out with housework or babysitting.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Quiet Dynamite: XMRV as an Infectious Agent

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by akrasia, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. SOC

    SOC Moderator and Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,282
    Likes:
    6,236
    USA
    Thanks, Eric! Unfortunately, I think my brain just exploded. Maybe a good night's sleep will give my brain enough rest that your post will sound like it's written in some language in which I am conversant [rueful grin]

    How I hate having ME/CFS.
  2. Eric Johnson from I&I

    Eric Johnson from I&I Senior Member

    Messages:
    337
    Likes:
    0
    Luv it!

    Remember, this is not understood to be discredited crap with faulty study design or premises. These studies are old, but they are still considered hard core lupus-ology as of 2007 - not necessarily true, but worth knowing about.
  3. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    435
    Raleigh, NC

    I am just so sick of those guys!
    Sorry but they can just kiss my l...whatever.......I used to think, well they're digging down into cortisol - its no big deal - it's never going to fix CFS but at least they're finding something - but they've just bottomed out here. Ugh....
  4. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    435
    Raleigh, NC
    This is going to be good...... THANK YOU!

    (Its got to be published fairly soon? No?)
  5. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Messages:
    753
    Likes:
    16
    Vancouver Canada suburbs
    I really do try and be open, but geez there is a limit..

    I do believe that stress causes conditions in the body - many different conditions.

    I am 60 years old, suffered symptoms from childhood, progressively worsened until about 6 years ago when I was in pretty bad shape and not able to do my job. Over the years I was told that I suffered depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. It wasnt until just a few years ago that I saw a very good psychiatrist who suggested that I had CFS. All of those years I had continuously PUSHED myself, igmored my symptoms, believed the doctors, geez this is enough to give you some kind of mental illness. It wasnt until I saw Dr Bruce Carruthers, that I discovered those panic attacks were indeed NOT panic attacks but were part of dysautonomia. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.

    Most of us are constantly under stress, trying to figure out ourselves, how to treat this illness.

    God help us all.

    glen
  6. Jimk

    Jimk

    Messages:
    90
    Likes:
    5
    Cleveland, Ohio
    The implications of the lymphoma, cancer and neuroimmune illness are huge for all of us. Let's hope this galvanizes some of the cancer research money, since it's a big lobby here.
    I'm a practicing psychologist with a research PhD, my research was in personality measurement, so I know the pitfalls of all the measurement techniques that are used in most of these type of studies. I'm with you, Cort, I'm so sick of this crap, and it's based on faulty measurement instruments measuring poorly selected samples. If anyone has a copy of this latest CDC sliming effort I'd love to see it to pick apart that methodology.

    But if the studies keep weighing in against them on the viral side, we can just watch their careers go down the tubes without spending our precious energy on combatting the idiots. Anyway, even us crazy people can get real illness!
  7. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    435
    Raleigh, NC
    In retrospect I don't think this is a new study finding XMRV in 75% of study participants - I think that refers to the Science study and the 75% includes people who were diagnosed using other than PCR. THere's nothing in the results section about 75% - too bad! that would have been nice.
  8. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas
    Hey Cort
    I think this is a separate study. I'm pretty sure the 75% is a clean number. Look at the designers of the study and the dates on this information. I think this is one of the studies that Dr. Mikovits said was in the pipeline and just hasn't been "published" yet. She said in her interview with you that they had 3 that were awaiting publishing. Plus the information in this doesn't look anything like the Science study. If I'm not totally out there I think this comes from the study that they did with the lymphoma patients that Dr. Peterson had in storage. 77 or the original 292 patients that Dr. Peterson treated from the Incline Village outbreak went on to develop Lymphoma. (confirmation Eric????)

    In one of Dr. Mikovits talks I think it was the one for Dr. Cheney she stated that they tested the lymphoma patient blood and came away with a much higher number than the original study but that the additional work on the first study yielded even higher numbers. (that 95% that we keep hearing about but has never been published)

    I know in one of the first talks Dr. M gave she intimated that it was Dr. Silvermans extreme concern about infectivity that had him calling on Dr. Frank Ruscetti and Frank hooked him up with Judy and the rest as they say is history.

    But my point is I've been looking at it and the Science study and some of the stuff in the library this is not one of them or a report off of one of them. So my guess is the DHHS is either not watching the back door (grins) or at this point they are in a position to deal with leaks, and publications ( they finally have their test) of the nearly dozen papers that have been in the pipeline since January. The positive ones! (Big grins)
  9. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
    I wonder if this is where the 75% figure comes from?

    Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome
    Judy A. Mikovits, Vincent C. Lombardi, Max A. Pfost, Kathryn S. Hagen and Francis W. Ruscetti
    Virulence
    Volume 1, Issue 5
    September/October 2010


    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    In October 2009, we reported the first direct isolation of infectious xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV). In that study, we used a combination of biological amplification and molecular enhancement techniques to detect XMRV in more than 75% of 101 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Since our report, controversy arose after the publication of several studies that failed to detect XMRV infection in their CFS patient populations. In this addenda, we further detail the multiple detection methods we used in order to observe XMRV infection in our CFS cohort. Our results indicate that PCR from DNA of unstimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells is the least sensitive method for detection of XMRV in subjects' blood. We advocate the use of more than one type of assay in order to determine the frequency of XMRV infection in patient cohorts in future studies of the relevance of XMRV to human disease.
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/virulence/article/12486/
  10. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
  11. anciendaze

    anciendaze Senior Member

    Messages:
    859
    Likes:
    887
    Now, that sentence interests me. How do I get Dr. Peterson to put me in storage until they get diagnosis and treatment options sorted out? ;)
  12. Megan

    Megan Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes:
    13
    Australia

    Sam you're right, this is a very interesting addendum to the original Science paper. Someone started a thread about this a while back when only the extract was available. It deserves it's own thread - I will stick an update on that one.
  13. dannybex

    dannybex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    Likes:
    514
    Seattle
    uh...maybe this is a stupid question...

    ...but how did the 67% turn into 75%?

    "In October 2009, we reported the first direct isolation of infectious xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV). In that study, we used a combination of biological amplification and molecular enhancement techniques to detect XMRV in more than 75% of 101 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)."

    :confused:
  14. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    From the abstract Akrasia linked to (bold mine):

  15. dannybex

    dannybex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    Likes:
    514
    Seattle
    Thanks Dr. Yes. :)

    Still don't understand however why it wasn't reported as 75% back in 2009 (since they say..."in that study"...?

    As I said, my brain is not cooperating...
  16. George

    George waitin' fer rabbits

    Messages:
    846
    Likes:
    44
    South Texas
    Actually Dr. Mikovits (is sort of in trouble because of) a later Addendum that lead to 95% number. That one still hasn't been published yet. (sad eyes)

    Hey Cort you were kinda right though cause this is a Addendum to the original paper so technically it's still the same paper just different Authors.

    and

    And I was out there. This is NOT the one they did on the Lymphoma patients. (dang it and I got all excited and peed on the carpet for nothing.)
  17. Alesh

    Alesh Senior Member

    Messages:
    176
    Likes:
    0
    Czech Republic, EU
    Eric, I think "DuBois" means "From a wood" in French. Indeed he probably just came from the wilderness. :D
  18. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
  19. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes:
    532
    Yeah, can someone check Sam and my count? I also got 93.

    The subjects in Tables 1 and 2 seem to be the same as those in Table 3 by my spot-checking. I did not check every patient ID number though -- is the remaining 8 from this?

    Also, the 75% figure I do not find in the text other than the abstract. If a number is in the abstract, it should also be in the text. Using Table 3, I counted the numbers of people with a positive cDNA PCR test (73) and added to the people with a negative cDNA PCR test but a positive other test (7) ----- with this, I got 80 with a positive test. 80/93 = 86%, not 75%.

    Finally, people are right to be confused about the percentages. Back at the CFSAC meeting, they gave out some of this data and from my notes,
    there were 33 people negative for PCR but many were positive by some other test. Adding this to the 67 positive PCRs, the number given out was that 99/101= 98% patients tested positive by at least one test. So this is different from the 75% given now as well.

    [In addition, the 95% figure was thrown out in relation to antibody testing a few months ago.]

    AAARRRRGGHHHHHH....................................someone check the numbers and my logic -- either it's my brain or this paper doesn't make things as clear as they could be.
  20. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes:
    532
    Also, I'm not sure why they picked this journal to be published in. This journal just got started this year and has an impact factor of about 7, compared to Science's 30. This should have ended up in Science as a reply to early criticisms rather than coming out now. Of course, this is all hindsight.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page