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!
A Little Poisoning Along the Road to ME/CFS
Looking at my symptoms, many of which are far less these days and some are gone, it would be easy to figure that I'd just been dealing with some heavy-duty menopausal issues.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Sexual tranmission of XMRV possibility (paper by Silverman)

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Jemal, May 26, 2011.

  1. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    And another paper from Silverman popped up today:

    www.hindawi.com/journals/av/aip/965689.pdf

    I don't think Silverman has given up on XMRV ;)
     
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes:
    12,600
    South of England
    Thanks Jemal.
    Is this a newly published paper?
     
  3. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Likes:
    2,093
    London
    Thanks for this Jemal. One of the reasons I got interested in XMRV was the rate of cervical cancer and cervical problems in my family (also prostate for the men).
     
  4. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Yes, it is recent.

    Received 27 April 2011; Accepted 25 May 2011

    Academic Editor: Arifa S. Khan (she is from the FDA)

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/aip/965689/
     
  5. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    Prostate cancer rates have tripled in all age groups in the last thirty years.
     
  6. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Yeah, there's a lot of evidence like this that make me suspect a virus is running rampant...
     
  7. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Care to quote some sources to support that assertion ? You might want to read this: Prostate cancer - UK incidence statistics

    Prostate cancer is strongly age related so prevalence will increase in an aging population, while incidence will increase simply as a function of increased medical intervention. There have been increased observed numbers of prostate cancer occurence but that is no indication that susceptibility has increased, and as the numbers are flattening out, increased suceptibility seems improbable.

    IVI
     
  8. Francelle

    Francelle Senior Member

    Messages:
    444
    Likes:
    15
    Victoria, Australia
    We have three men in our church who are battling Prostate cancer at the moment. Two are in their early fifties, one of whose wife died of breast cancer a few years ago when she was 44. The other man is in his early sixties. None of which are particularly elderly, IMO.

    Prostate C does definitely seem to be so much more rampant these days. I guess only time will tell why the apparent/actual escalation in prevalence!
     
  9. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    Thanks for the Prostate Cancer data IVI. But I'm surprised by your reading of it. To quote from it:

    So: it is not disputed that there has been a huge rise in prostate cancer incidence in the last 20-30 years. The page notes that "much" of the increased incidence "can" be attributed to improved detection, but just as when this argument is advanced in relation to autism, it is no more than speculation without supporting data indicating how, why, and by how much the detection rates contributed to the dramatic increase in incidence. Unfortunately, the page does not appear to put any numbers on this hypothesised "improved detection" explanation for the dramatic rise in the rates of prostate cancer, nor indeed have I ever seen a numerical supporting argument for any such speculation in the past.

    This reminds me of the "hygiene hypothesis" for the rise in the rates of allergies - another case where the more convenient and less troubling explanation for an apparent epidemic can become well-known and accepted, not only in the medical and scientific communities, but in the population at large, with no requirement for any hard evidence whatsoever to be advanced in support of that explanation. Note that any supporting evidence for the hygiene hypothesis - if it existed - would be highly unlikely to be able to distinguish between (a) the possibility that "cleaner childhood environments" were the cause of the modern crisis facing the human immune system, and (b) the possibility that synthetic chemicals in the cleaning products themselves were responsible for the effect. But I digress...

    "However, since 2001 the rates have only increased by 4% with the numbers of cases diagnosed rising from 32,624 to 37,051 in 2008" - this is an interesting quote because a rise from 32,624 to 37,051 is a 13.5% rise, not a 4% rise, by my calculations, and even as a per annum rate I can't think where the 4% figure came from.

    The underlined quote is basically what Currer said initially, so it seems that the reference fully supports that assertion. Figure 1.6 supports Currer's assertion that the rise has affected all age groups. So it seems that the reference backs up everything Currer said: Prostate cancer rates have indeed tripled in all age groups in the last thirty years.


    So: rates of prostate cancer have roughly trebled from 1975 to 2008, roughly doubled between 1993 and 2001, and the rise in rates flattened off somewhat since 2001.

    The graphs in Figures 1.5 and 1.6 are interesting, showing the pattern of the increase since 1975. Noticeable from those graphs:
    - the underlying trend of the graph seems to have already been gradually increasing between 1975 and 1981, amongst older men especially.
    - the rate seems to increase sharply around 1990.
    - in about 1995, the rate in older men seems to decline sharply, while continuing to rise - now more sharply - in younger men.

    Figure 1.7 illustrates the increased rates of TURP and PSA testing in Scotland. This graph, illustrating the increased rate of testing and discovery of prostate cancer, seems to be the only evidence advanced to support the hypothesis that the increased rate is purely attributable to improved detection. It does appear to fit the graphs of the rise in rates of PC reasonably well, since the rates begin to rise sharply in about 1989 when PSA testing is introduced. It may perhaps also explain the decline in rates amongst older men since 1995, if men in that age bracket benefited from earlier detection a decade earlier. However, I'd like to see a much more detailed analysis of the expected impact of these detection rate effects on the overall rate - which should be easily calculable - before reaching any conclusions from these graphs.

    It's perhaps worth pointing out that the case for XMRV being a 'contaminant' is at present largely founded on the evidence of Coffin et al. who claim that XMRV is a novel human retrovirus engineered accidentally in the lab in about 1992, through common laboratory processes, and spread around the world as a widespread contaminant via as-yet unknown vectors.

    When the "case against" XMRV states that XMRV is the type of novel human retrovirus that has been created accidentally in the laboratory, using a common laboratory process, and that it has been spread around the world's laboratories through an unknown mechanism, and that this sort of "contamination" and creation of novel human retroviruses is now so common and widespread that it is a well-known problem in virology research, and nothing remarkable, and there is 'no evidence' that the retrovirus is associated with human disease....then this is not exactly reassuring.

    Anyway, since XMRV was apparently lab-created some time around 1990, and since the evidence for its association with prostate cancer remains quite strong, laboratory-created retroviruses in general seem to me at least as strong a candidate as improved detection rates to explain the sharp rise in prostate cancer incidence between 1990 and 2001.
     
  10. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    PS: This assertion is clearly irrelevant to the data about rising rates on the page cited...

    ...because the rates documented by the graphs and statistics are based on the rates of prostate cancer in the given age groups, not the total numbers diagnosed, and the rates - the proportion of individuals in a given age group diagnosed with prostate cancer - have clearly increased in every age group.

    Thus the only argument that's presented to challenge the assertion that rates of prostate cancer have risen dramatically, is the suggestion that this rise may be explained by an improvement in detection rates. That may be the case, but much clearer evidence would be needed in order to conclude that there has not been a genuine rise in the prevalence of prostate cancer during the last few decades.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page