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!
Hunting down the cause of ME/CFS & other challenging disorders - Lipkin in London
In a talk to patients in London on 3rd September, Dr. W. Ian Lipkin described the extraordinary lengths he and his team are prepared to go to in order to track down the source of an illness, with examples ranging from autism to the strange case of Kawasaki disease.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Viology podcast - XMRV special with Singh 8th August

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Esther12, Aug 8, 2010.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    It always surprises me that I keep coming across new information, that I've never heard of before, in relation to ME/CFS, even though I've been following scientific news about ME for about 5 years now... This research into 'Cryptovirus' is one of those pieces of information...

    It amazes me that we keep on getting promising bits of virology research coming out, and then hearing nothing else about it!
    What happened to Cryptovirus? And what happened to Elaine DeFreitas' retrovirus?

    It's interesting that Cryptovirus is an RNA virus, and was found in 96% of CFS patients... Does that sound familiar at all? Very similar to XMRV?
    Does anyone know if RNA viruses are very common? I had thought that they were rare, and that all RNA viruses were designated as 'retro-viruses'... Shows how much I don't know about virology!

    Does anyone know if there are any threads on the forum about Cryptovirus? I can't find any.


    Reference:
    http://www.ncf-net.org/library/PressRelease0606.htm

     
  2. anciendaze

    anciendaze Senior Member

    Messages:
    907
    Likes:
    1,063
    RNA viruses are quite common, causing most common viral diseases, and most are not retroviruses. The difference is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase which converts genetic information from RNA to DNA.

    Most of the 'junk DNA' in human and animal genomes is believed to have been inserted by retroviruses. Most of it comes from the retrovirus itself, but some sequences now appear to be captured from RNA viruses infecting the same cell.

    The name cryptovirus appears to be something that simply did not catch on. It sounds like a generic term meaning 'hidden virus'. As for what happened to studies of cryptovirus or the virus DeFreitas found, the same thing that happened to many odd findings: nobody followed up.

    Unfortunately, we have had many studies showing strong correlation between a virus and a small sample of patients. We now have good reason to believe we are dealing with a virus which affects the immune system and increases likelihood of coinfections. Many people have seized on a coinfection as a primary cause, when it may have been a passenger, or a cause of only some symptoms. The problem with the whole field is that researchers, like patients, are isolated.

    Had researchers been able to keep looking, and publish preliminary findings without being pushed beyond the data, and discuss the puzzling behavior of this beast without having to defend their reputations, we would be decades ahead of where we are. The research community has now reached a level of maturity where some are beginning to realize new pathogens will likely be those with puzzling behavior which escaped earlier discovery.

    XMRV is not the only example. I've just learned about frustrating problems of establishing existence of a human virus corresponding to Murine Mammary Tumor Virus. The same mixed pattern of detection and false alarms applies to HMTV, even though the resulting illness is accepted as real. This sounds like another example of a pathogen that doesn't obey human rules.
     
  3. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    Thanks anciendaze, for the info regarding viruses.

    The disappearance, from the scientific radar, of DeFreitas's retrovirus, Cryptovirus, and now the difficulties which you mention regarding HMTV, makes me realise just what an enormous achievement that the WPI have achieved, for XMRV not to be totally buried by now. Thankfully for us, the Whittemores had money to fund the research, and Judy Mikovits had connections with scientists at the NCI, not to ignore the fact that Judy Mikovits is a top quality scientist and really knows her virology, and is very focused and persistant, and doesn't take 'no' for an answer.
     
  4. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    Here's some details of the study which Dr Singh is involved with:

    Transcription

    at 28mins 22secs

     
  5. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    Here's an interesting discussion regarding anti-retrovirals, which work at inhibiting XMRV in cell culture, which Dr Singh has published a paper about...

    Transcription:

    at 35 mins 27 secs

     
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,384
    Likes:
    5,891
    Thanks for that Bob. Nice to be able to read it through.
     
  7. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    You welcome :Retro smile:
     
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    Transcription part 1

    Subject: Prostate Cancer and XMRV


    from 9 mins 10 Secs

    Interviewer:
    And you've published a few papers looking at the involvement in prostate cancers. Correct?

    Dr Singh:
    That's right, that's right.

    Interviewer:
    So what is the summation of that? What is the current state of our understand in terms of prostate cancer.

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, so what we did was we looked at about 233, if I remember correctly, cases of prostate cancer, that were consecutive cases that came to Columbia University Medical Centre for prostatectomy.
    And we looked at about 100 cases of benign prostates, where people had their prostates removed for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
    And what we found was that the virus was present in over one-fourth of patients with prostate cancer, and in only about 6% of patients without prostate cancer.
    And when we found the virus in cancer, it was almost always in the malignant prostatic epithelium...
    which is consistent with retroviral theory of carcinogenesis because, in order for a retrovirus to cause cancer, it needs to infect the cell from which the cancer arises.
    And, until our study was done, Bob Silverman's previous study, with the original report that reported XMRV, had only seen the virus in stromal cells; very rare stromal cells,
    which is not consistent with how we understand retroviruses cause cancer. So this was kind of an interesting finding.

    And then we looked for the association between RNaseL and XMRV... the association of those mutations in RNaseL and XMRV... and we did not find anything, any association between the two.

    This was, again, different from what was reported previously. And that we've now done on a much larger subset of cases, and we don't find it.
    And now i think i've also heard Eric Kline, who was an author in the first study, which reported this association, saying that they don't see it any more either.

    So that may have been a function of their looking at a geographically restricted population where there might have been some linkage between that mutation... which we, in this very diverse population of New York City, we didn't see that.

    12 mins 7 secs

    Interviewer:
    So, wait a minute... that first study, that discovered the association between the RNaseL mutation and XMRV, was screening... I mean, how was that done, because it was looking for a genetic basis, right? for...

    Dr Singh:
    It was just looking for a single mutation, a point mutation that leads to a amino acid change from R to Q.

    Interviewer:
    That would be correlated... yeah... but they were looking for a correlation with prostate cancer, right?

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, so that was already known from a previous study which had looked at hereditary prostate cancer, and found that poeple who had prostate cancer in their families had this particular variant of RNaseL...

    Interviewer:
    So the RNaseL correlation stands up?

    Dr Singh:
    No, surprisingly enough, no.
    So that correlation, between RNaseL and prostate cancer, was first reported in a very small study. Any time a much larger population-wide study was done, that correlation does not hold up...
    ... So, there are only two set studies, so it's hard to say what is really going on there.

    Interviewer:
    So, i'm trying to sort this out in my head because my original understanding was that you're looking for a correlation between some sort of genetic flaw and prostate cancer...
    You come up with the RNaseL mutation and an associated XMRV and now those two are segregated, so i wonder what's the truth... is the reason the RNaseL thing came up is because you were actually selecting out people who had the XMRV and the RNaseL mutation was closely associated, and it was the XMRV that led you to that discovery, and not the RNaseL, now that the RNaseL is no longer a correlation...
    See what I mean?

    14 mins 18 secs

    Dr Singh:
    You know, i see what you mean, but really the poeple we should ask are the people who found that correlation, exactly how they picked their patients and what was done...
    In trying to parse that paper very very carefully, because our finding, obviously, did not agree with that, so we read that paper over and over, those aspects... we cannot tell how those patients were selected or what the process was.
    So, all i can say is that our study involved over 200 patients, so it was a much bigger study and we didn't find any correlation, and now we have now done it on many more patients and we still don't see that correlation.

    Interviewer:
    So you see no correlation with the RNaseL...

    Dr Singh:
    No correlation with the RNaseL...

    Interviewer:
    And where does that leave XMRV?

    Dr Singh:
    So all that means is that XMRV possibly can infect people with any kind of RNaseL genotype, so the implication would be that all of us are susceptible to XMRV, regardless of what our RNaseL makeup is.

    Interviewer:
    So have you continued to work on the prostate cancer/XMRV connection?

    Dr Singh:
    That's right, yes, a little bit.

    15 mins 40secs

    Interviewer:
    And obviously CFS maybe taking your attention away from that but i'm just wondering where are we with that now...
    There have been a number of other studies, some of them are positive, and some of them are not... what has to be done, in your opinion, to sort that out?

    Dr Singh:
    I think the biggest problem with XMRV, and i think that this is equally true of prostate cancer, and chronic fatigue syndrome, probably... and i should address it more with prostate cancer because that is what we have most experience with... is that the virus is present in samples in very small amounts... it really is very hard to detect, and that is probably going to be the case with a lot of pathogens that are discovered now is that... the ones that were present in abundant amounts are probably already known...

    Interviewer:
    The low hanging fruit, right?

    Dr Singh:
    Yeah, so the problem really is that you need very sensitive tests and, at the same time, when you are working with a very sensitive test, you need it to be specific also... so these tests should be able to detect XMRV but not detect other endogenous retroviruses, or other mouse retroviruses, you know, it can be a problem because a lot of people, when they section their tissues on micro-tomes, the same micro-tomes are often used to section mouse tissues... So Vincent, like the study that you were talking about when you needed a collaborator to do your mouse... those mouse tissues were probably sectioned on the same micro-tomes as human tissues are. So when you are looking for very tiny amounts of the virus, you want to make sure that you are not looking at mouse viruses. We go through a kind of a crazy routine, and we learnt this the hard way... we make them change the knife, the blade, as well as bleach the micro-tome stage between cases. It makes the whole process much more expensive and tedious to do.
    So those are the sorts of issues, and then you really need to develop good tests, good sensitive tests... it's just not sufficient to show that something can detect something in a plasmid template... it's hard to know if it's going to detect something in a matrix that's as complicated as blood, or cellular DNA.
    So I think that's probably one of the biggest reasons for why people find different results.

    Interviewer:
    So, in your mind, is there pretty likely a correlation between XMRV and prostate cancer?

    Dr Singh:
    Well, i know that XMRV is present in prostate cancers... OK... i'm pretty convinced about that.
    What i don't know is whether it's causing prostate cancer at all. We are far away from showing that.

    19 mins 15 secs

    Interviewer:
    So i'm reminded of a previous show that we did where there were studies on the host range in culture of XMRV ... it grew well on cells that came from prostates or prostate cancer cells...
    so what you are saying is that it could be that XMRV grows in prostate cancer, but is not necessarily causative...
    That's a possibility, right?

    Dr Singh:
    Absolutely.

    Interviewer:
    And the association is not 100%. Of course that could be a sensitivity issue as well, right?

    Dr Singh:
    That is correct.

    Interviewer:
    So it could be that you can't always detect it. It could be that it is not actually causative, but only associative. But it could be that it is causative, but only in, say, some fraction of prostate cancers. All those are possibilities, is that right?

    Dr Singh:
    That's absolutely correct, yes.

    Interviewer:
    So you would say that there is conflicting literature on this, and you would attribute that to, say, sensitivity and specificity of assays used?

    Dr Singh:
    That's right, yes.

    Interviewer:
    I keep wondering... the obvious explanation that occurs to me is that this virus is a bystander, that it's an opportunist, getting into these malignant cells and prostate cancer, and possibly there maybe a similar story in chronic fatigue... and one way to kind of explore that would be to look for XMRV in other conditions where you might have particularly susceptible cells, or particularly weakened immune systems, and i'm wondering if anybody's done that sort of study?... Like in transplant recipients, or anything like that?

    21 mins 07 secs

    Dr Singh:
    Not that i'm aware of...
    So, we are doing a study where we are looking for XMRV in an autopsy series. So we are looking at 75 male autopsies done over a period of a year and a half.. you know, every consecutive autopsy. And the same way for females. And that's still ongoing; there's a lot of analysis that needs to go on with these patients. And then we will actually be able to see if there is any correlation between presence of XMRV and transplant patients, or any other immuno-supression, or patients who have other infections, sexually transmitted disease, and so on.
    So that's ongoing and we should learn something from that, but it's too early to say.

    Interviewer:
    OK, so you are just screening everybody who comes across the slab then?

    Dr Singh:
    That's exactly right.

    Interviewer:
    Multiple tissues as well, not just prostate?

    Dr Singh:
    That's right.

    Interviewer:
    That should be quite interesting.

    Dr Singh:
    We wanted to know what other organs might be affected, in XMRV infected individuals, and we wanted to know if females had XMRV, so this study should answer some of those questions... we're not there yet.

    Interviewer:
    XMRV, by sequence, appears to be derived from a Murine retro-virus. Do you any sense of how that was introduced into humans at some point? When did this happen, and how?

    Dr Singh:
    No, I don't think anyone's done enough to figure that out. The thinking is that it came into humans at some point, and that it has been transmitted from humans to humans, and it's not that every human infection is a result of a mouse encounter. But beyond that i don't think we understand anything.

    Interviewer:
    And even the prevalence in healthy individuals, we really don't understand that level yet, is that correct?

    23 mins, 26 secs

    Dr Singh:
    That's absolutely correct.
    I mean, in our case, there could be multiple explanations of why people with benign prostates have XMRV... it could be that our tests will pick up a certain number of false positives, so you know, our tests are not perfect, and the virus is not even be there in these poeple, but we pick that up.
    The second possibility could be that these people have the virus but just haven't developed prostate cancer yet, and may develop prostate cancer in 10 or 20 years. But with the samples that we have have, are all been completely de-identified, so there's no way of going back to these patients to see what happens to them.
    And then the final possibility is that the benign prostates were removed by transurethral resuction, so that is an operation that just removes the tissue just surrounding the urethra. It's done because in elderly men the prostate gets enlarged and they have difficulty urinating. But that part of the tissue, the part of the prostate that's around the urethra, is not the part that usually develops prostate cancer; prostate cancer develops around the periphery of the gland. So it's possible that these people even may have prostate cancer in another part of the gland, that's not yet discovered. So there's many reasons why you can say that there's a 6% positive, and we really don't know and there's no good way right now of determining that.

    Interviewer:
    A lot of stuff left to be done...

    Interviewer 2:
    Yeah, It's amazing right?
    And we haven't even touched CFS yet.

    Interviewer:
    I had a quick look at your PNAS paper that described the association between XMRV and prostate cancer, and i was particularly struck by the fact that the percent positivity was higher when you looked by immuno-histo-chemistry as opposed to PCR, so looking for protein expressed in cells by a microscopic technique... you stain [inaudible] an antibody [inaudible] to the protein and look at the microscope, as opposed to looking for DNA by amplification by PCR.
    Because i'm conditioned to think that PCR is absolutely the most sensitive thing that you can possibly do. And you present compelling arguments for the notion that the immuno-histo-chemistry is even more sensitive because it's only a few cells that are positive, and so by PCR, the DNA that's present, or the nucleic acid that's present is really pretty dilute. It's very interesting.

    Dr Singh:
    That's right.
    Yes, sometimes the human eye is better than the most sophisticated test, and this is one of those examples, because, you know, you have this brown cell in a sea of blue cells and the pathologist very quickly finds it under a microscope. It's easy to find.

    Interviewer:
    The pictures were striking, and it really speaks to your arguments about selectivity and sensitivity of the assay. You've got to have the right antibody, and you've got to be doing the assay correctly.

    Dr Singh:
    That's right, and you've got to be using the right tissues as well. A lot of people tend to think that they will just screen thousands of prostate cancers using tissue micro-arrays and, you know, we tried that and it doesn't work, and we have that on our website for people who are using our antibody. But i don't know how many people then go back and say, OK i'm going to look at large sections, because the virus is really present in a few cells, so you really have to scan large sections, and you know, looking at little tissue micro-arrays in our hands, at least, never worked.

    27 mins, 33 secs

    Interviewer:
    And the antibody that you use, what's its origin?

    Dr Singh:
    So, we cultured the virus in human cells and then we harvested this virus, and injected it into rabbits.

    Interviewer:
    OK, so it's made to complete variance [?]

    Dr Singh:
    That's correct, yes.

    27 mins 55 secs
     
  9. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
    Transcription part 2

    ...continued directly from previous post - no gap in the transcription...

    Subject: CFS, XMRV and the Science Paper


    from 27 mins 55 secs

    Interviewer:
    So last year ... the Science paper came out, showing a strong association of XMRV with patients with Chronic Fatigue, and you were already at Utah at the time, so I assume that you, on hearing that, you decided to look into that as well?

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, we did. So that is another ongoing project.
    What we are doing is we are looking at 100 patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
    We collected fresh samples from them.
    And we collected samples from 200 healthy volunteers.
    All of these people live in and around Salt Lake City.

    We are analysing and looking for XMRV using a battery of different tests...

    So, using multiple PCR tests that look at different parts of the genome.
    Doing RTPCR, looking for the virus, looking for the viral RNA.

    And we are using some of the same tests that the paper in Science reported.
    Namely the one where you take human plasma and you add it to LNCaP cells.
    LNCaP cells are a prostate cancer cell line that are particularly good at growing XMRV.
    And then you culture these cells for a while and then you keep looking for evidence of XMRV infection in these cells by various means.
    So it's a whole bunch of tests.
    We are also doing some serological tests that we have developed.
    So we'll see what we find...

    Interviewer:
    Are these different patients from the Science study?

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, they are completely different patients from the Science study.

    Interviewer:
    Now, how are you defining your CFS cases? Because that's been a bone of contention too, I gather.

    Dr Singh:
    Yeah, it's really hard. We have different criteria that we have used... Fukuda criteria etc.
    And then the physicians have categorised them into different severity groups.
    And we have people from very severe, moderately severe and the most functional group.
    But these are very hard things to categorise, so one of the physicians who is involved in the study was explaining to us that sometimes you can call somebody very functional because they are holding a job, but the nature of the disease is such that if they stress themselves out more, then they are likely to get more sick. So sometimes, by our sort of measure, ways that we measure function, we'll say that this person is really functional, they actually hold a full time job. But the real fact maybe is that's all they do... is that they go to work, they work, and then they come back, then they are unable to do anything else. So these are very difficult categorisations, and it's a hard disease to just, you know, put a number on it, or put something quantitative, that'll help us. So we're struggling, as is everyone else, to make some sense out of these.

    Interviewer:
    What is the best material to use; so, the original paper used blood or [inaudible]... So are you doing the same, or are you doing more than that. We don't know where the virus is, right?

    Dr Singh:
    That's exactly right, so we have no idea where the virus is. So we're just doing everything that we can... so we are looking at white cells in the blood, we're looking at plasma, we're looking at serum for antibodies, we're looking at... we have a whole blood assay that we're using. So, basically, every fraction of peripheral blood that we can look at.

    Interviewer:
    Which is the easiest sample to get, I suppose?

    Dr Singh:
    It's the easiest sample to get from these patients.
    And really, for chronic fatigue syndrome, it's hard to know what else might be the best tissue.
    For prostate cancer it's obvious, right, you just use the prostate cell...

    Interviewer:
    It could be, for CFS, it's a different tissue, right?

    Dr Singh:
    Yeah, it could be the brain for example... I mean, who knows, right?

    Interviewer:
    So, here again, my understanding is that there's been a lot of conflicting evidence, or controversy, in the literature about an association between CFS and XMRV which, again, could be the assays.
    What i've been looking for is for the individuals involved to swap samples. Has there been any of that?

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, so, I can only tell you about what we are doing... and so, Judy Mikovits, who is the main author of the original study that showed that XMRV was present in chronic fatigue syndrome, has been kind enough to make arrangements to give us samples... adn we are sort of mid-way in getting samples from her. And this is how it's happening... she gives us the names of people who are positive for XMRV in their hands, and people who are negative for XMRV in their hands, to a phlebotomy service. The phlebotomy service then goes to these patients and collects the samples and then they directly send the samples to us. So there's no question that the sample may get contaminated, somehow, in the Mikovits lab, which has XMRV growing there... so it's coning straight from the patient to us.

    Interviewer:
    And are these samples coded when they get to you?

    Dr Singh:
    They are all coded, so we're completely blinded. We won't know which one is positive, which one is negative.

    Interviewer:
    Perfect.

    Dr Singh:
    So we have so far, i think, gotten about 9 samples, and we'll probably get an equal number more, and then we'll start the analysis on those. So that is an ongoing process.

    Interviewer:
    Excellent. I look forward to seeing that.

    Interviewer 2:
    I presume that this and many other studies are gong to be needed before we really have a sense of where [or when?] the virus is replicating, how it causes disease, and if it is associated with disease. Is that a reasonable statement to make?

    Dr Singh:
    That's an absolutely reasonable statement to make, yes.

    Interviewer:
    Because, from what i see, this is a growing field now. XMRV has had a meeting at Cold Spring Harbor, there's a meeting at NIH in September. So it's a brand new field.
    And probably you never thought that a Murine virus would be clinically relevant? all those years...

    Dr Singh:
    That's right.

    35 mins 27 secs

    Interviewer:
    Now, you published a paper showing that XMRV is susceptible to some HIV anti-virals

    Dr Singh:
    That's right, yes.
    So it is susceptible, probably, most susceptible to a drug that inhibits HIV integrase called Raltegravir.
    And it is also susceptible to a couple of drugs that inhibit the reverse transcriptase enzyme, so...
    AZT which is the well known anti-HIV drug.
    And then Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate, or TDF, which is the pro-drug form of Tenofovir which inhibits RT.

    So those are particularly effective at inhibiting XMRV in cell culture.
    We haven't done any animal or human studies.

    Interviewer:
    So this is an interesting situation, because they're approved, obviously for treating AIDS, and they can be used off-label, for example an XMRV-positive patient could go to their physician and say "I want to have this". And, so what would need to be done to have FDA approval for the use of these in, say, treating XMRV infection?

    36 mins 47 secs

    Dr Singh:
    We are talking, right now, with Merck to start a clinical trial, which would be double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial in chronic fatigue syndrome patients.
    And the reason to do that was that it was brought to my attention that a lot of patients were already taking these drugs, and were blogging about it on the web.
    So it just seemed wrong to not actually try to find out by scientific means if these drugs were effective or not.
    So we are in the very early stages of talking... it may not materialize in the form of a clinical trial, but that's what we are engaged in.

    Interviewer:
    I guess it's early in the story, and so it's hard to generate the information you need to do such a trial, because, again, we don't know where the virus is replicating and how it is pathogenic...

    Dr Singh:
    That's right... And it's hard to even measure... how will you measure the outcome of your trial?

    Interviewer:
    Right, especially since CFS, in particular, is, in many patients, a relapsing/remitting sort of condition...

    Dr Singh:
    That's absolutely right...

    Interviewer:
    Anything you give these people may appear to work in some of them.

    Dr Singh:
    Right.

    Interviewer:
    So the trial you describe would be to see if individuals with chronic fatigue have symptoms that are ameliorated in any way by treatment?

    Dr Singh:
    Well, it's not known yet how we would do it, but we are just in the process of just talking. Ideally it would be great if we had a lab [?] test that we could look at... if we could measure viral loads before and after...

    Interviewer:
    Yes, that's a good point, because without that, it's hard to measure the efficacy of the treatment, right?

    Dr Singh:
    If it's going to be hard to measure the virus in disease, then it's a hard thing to....

    Interviewer:
    The other approach is, of course, for testing, say, an HIV drug... You give it to a susceptible population and then you see the fraction that are protected by it. Or a vaccine, even. But that can't really be done at this point with XMRV, I presume.

    Interviewer 2:
    And even in the AIDS trials, I'm sure they measure viral load, and stuff, right, so...

    Interviewer:
    And you also have the confounding factor that those patients have HIV.

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, and also in the AIDS trials, viral load came up much later and some of their early studies were just done on symptoms and T-cell counts, and much more cruder assays than viral.

    Interviewer:
    Assays run by pathologists, right. [laughs]
    That's a good point... early on we didn't understand much about viral loads... that's a good point.

    Interviewer 2:
    Well my guess is that you're not going to have any trouble getting people to enroll on this study. Sound like the people who are afflicted by this are really desperate for some sort of treatment.

    Dr Singh:
    Yes, i sense that desperation when i see the blogs and when people write to me all the time.
    But, really, it's too early in the game for people to be, erm, you know, to even know what this virus is doing.

    Interviewer:
    Yeah, and i think that when people are talking about taking anti-retrovirals, these are not benign compounds... It's a mighty big gun to aim at a target that we can't even identify yet.

    Dr Singh:
    That is correct; These drugs are not without their side effects.

    Interviewer:
    Do you know how common CFS is in this country? What sort of numbers of patients we are talking about?

    Dr Singh:
    Yeah, people throw around different numbers, depending on what study they quote. Something like 0.5 to 2%... these are huge numbers. A lot of patients...

    Interviewer:
    I was just thinking that when AIDS first surfaced in the 1980's... i just wonder if patients... i suspect not... i have a fuzzy memory... maybe you remember, Ila, better... but was there the same type of patient response, or was it such an unusual and rare disease initially, that, you know, you didn't have people saying "i think i have this; treat me"...
    Do you know what i'm talking about? Do you recall the atmosphere at the time?

    Dr Singh:
    erm, no, actually i don't...

    Interviewer:
    I'm just wondering if this is a new phenomenon where, from this point forward now... a new disease, or a disease that hasn't been sorted out... as soon as there is some suggestion of an infectious agent, there'll be clamouring for very very quick solutions, and, as you know, they never come quickly.

    Dr Singh:
    That's right... I also think that there are two things going on... There's the desire in the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patient group to be cured, of course, which is common with the poeple who had HIV... but, in contrast, people with HIV... people took their disease seriously from day one... they knew that they had a disease, whereas here, there are many people who are not even sure if chronic fatigue syndrome is an entity... So having a clear test, like, you know, showing that there is a virus, that is specific to this illness would mean more than just treatment... it would also validate, for these patients, that they have a real disease. OK, so there is that going on also in this.

    43 mins 15 secs

    Interviewer:
    One of the things that came up with the XMRV-CFS link, and obviously that's still all up in the air, but already we've already had discussions that CFS patients shouldn't give blood. Is that an appropriate precautionary reaction, or is that premature?

    Dr Singh:
    Well, it's probably an appropriate precautionary reaction. There are several countries that have already asked people, with CFS, not to donate. Australia, Canada have already done that. Considering that there are not that many CFS people who are going out to donate, it is not probably not a huge risk, but it would probably not be a bad precaution to have until we know a little bit more about the disease.

    44 mins 12 secs
     
  10. pictureofhealth

    pictureofhealth XMRV - L'Agent du Jour

    Messages:
    534
    Likes:
    1
    Europe
    Thank you Bob, this transcription is really appreciated.
     
  11. RustyJ

    RustyJ Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'

    Messages:
    1,014
    Likes:
    559
    Noosaville, Aust
    Good job Bob. Thank you.
     
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,861
    Likes:
    12,455
    South of England
  13. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    Very good point!
     
  14. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    Impish- This isn't benign neglect! It is a calculated quarter century war on ME science and patients by CDC, NIH and the UK psychs and the miniscule funding is an important part of that. Please don't give these criminals any cover! Pls read Osler's Web and Magical Medicine if you have ANY doubt.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page