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!
ME/CFS and the Magic of the Canine Factor
There's been plenty of research indicating that having pets is good for your health. I never really noticed any particular benefits to having cats, though that may have had more to do with my cats. They've been fairly indifferent to my presence and we've shared a live-and-let-live...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

William Switzer - CDC looking for XMRV and MLV in lab workers!

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by CBS, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes:
    257
    Western US
    That was not my impression. In the tape he says "there are some of us who've been working with XMRV, murine related viruses, I've been doing it for 35 years and I know that I'm negative, at least the last time I looked."
     
  2. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    That's not true - see the CDC's Phase IIa results from the BWG. They found CFS patient samples positive for XMRV and what they called "MLVs" using two new PCR assays that they hadn't used before. Inexplicably, they immediately afterward abandoned using those assays!

    Whoa, whoa! That's not what they're learning!! Be careful how you interpret science, Cort. There is evidence that it may be a virus that was created in a lab, but that is by no means definitive yet. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that it contaminated the WPI samples. In fact, the vastly different positivity rates between CFS patient and negative control sets in the WPI and other groups' studies is evidence against contamination (that is one of the purposes of having controls, after all). Then there is the issue of the PMRVs and M-PMRVs being found by the WPI, NCI, NIH/FDA, and Hanson at Cornell... those are distinct from one another and from XMRV as defined by Coffin et al. What about those? How many different recombinant contaminants are we talking about?

    You obviously haven't asked them. ;) The reason they haven't yet is because it's really, really difficult in the case of XMRV. There may only be one cell in which integration has occurred out of millions; finding such cells (and finding the virus in those cells and sequencing the provirus and its flanking sequences) takes a very long time, and is a major commitment of laboratory resources. I'm sure they're working on it, but resources are in short supply thanks to a lack of funding, among other things.
     
  3. Christopher

    Christopher Senior Member

    Messages:
    464
    Likes:
    179
    Pennsylvania
    Cort, be careful not to give more weight to short-term trends over long-term research (recency effect might be kicking in for you).

    Much more research has to be done, and is currently being done, to determine the importance/existence of XMRV. Until such research is conclusive either way (which it is not currently), look for studies to continue to be published arguing both for and against.

    It is entirely too soon to say one way or the other how this is going to play.
     
  4. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC

    It was an accident and they believe it happened between 1993 and 1996.
     
  5. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes:
    257
    Western US
    First, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they seemed more than ready to take a quick look and then dismiss this as another CFS dead end. That tune seems to have changed.

    As for Enron, Deep Water, Tuskegee, etc. comments. That was in response to your reassurances that those things only happen in the olden days when people were ignorant and the government didn't provided sufficient oversight. I'm saying good luck with that view. There is plenty of evidence to question blind faith in government oversight. And again, it doesn't malice, just self-interest.
     
  6. Dreambirdie

    Dreambirdie work in progress

    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes:
    3,356
    N. California
    HELLO! Very important, Cort! Please get that straight.

    Thanks Dr Yes, for your well informed posts on this thread.
     
  7. Lynn

    Lynn Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    Likes:
    51
    How would a date of 1993-1996 explain people who became ill in the 1980's?

    Lynn
     
  8. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Oh man... I laughed out loud when I read this. It does look they want to have both ways.
     
  9. Otis

    Otis Señor Mumbler

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes:
    116
    USA
    I explored this a bit on another thread. Better placed here.

     
  10. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Actually I just asked them in an interview.

    I agree that there's evidence that is was created in a lab and its not definitive - that's why I said 'leaning'....its all circumstantial at this point - but it is mounting. Regarding the controls we all know the problems with controls and different sampling and storage techniques. That is why the BWG study is the key to this whole thing. If the WPI can pick out the positives from the healthy controls that changes everything.
     
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes:
    5,602
    I agree with Cort that there's genuine concern about finding the truth as regards to XMRV (too big a risk not to)... but I certainly don't think there's much moral imperative with CFS though.
     
  12. asleep

    asleep Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes:
    212
    Yes, and Cort is trying desperately to convince us that these two incompatible realities are one and the same. Hilarious.
     
  13. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    A quick look??? All that work?
     
  14. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Good point Christopher - these studies have not been replicated yet and we will surely see more.

    Trying figure out one part of this -concerning the 22RV1 cell and its connection to all this - this is what I've come up with

    You can see the problem. The XMRV the WPI found appears to be almost exactly identical to the other strains. If that's true then its hard to imagine how XMRV was not a lab escape and and got into CFS samples and prostate cancer samples instead of CFS patients and prostate cancer patients.

    That's because of the low genetic variability of the samples thus far. I have asked Dr. Mikovits about this and about the potential for other more variable strains to be present. It is also possible that XMRV is acting very oddly and has less variability in the wild than it does in the lab.....there are alot of possibilities but this would be really surprising. Basically with XMRV there is alot of circumstantial evidence......
     
  15. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes:
    257
    Western US
    Yes, a relatively quick look given the potential consequences and no, they haven't been interested in the same cohort nor in replicating the original methodology or that of Lo/Alter.
     
  16. August59

    August59 Daughters High School Graduation

    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes:
    405
    Upstate SC, USA
    Is it possible that the assays developed to screen out "contamination" could have in fact been screening out the "lab created XMRV"? The one that is "extraordinarily infectious"?
     
  17. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    No. I'm not desperate at all. I'm trying to methodically work my way through this.
     
  18. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Why are there so many conspiracy theorists amongst us? Is that another symptom of CFS? :angel:

    I don't think people are trying to do a coverup on XMRV. I do believe egos are involved though and that obviously impacts (objective) science.

    It's all very confusing for me, things seem to be far more complicated than they are presented. At first it looked like everyone was screaming "contaminant" yet significant resources go into further research. There's definitely a few folks that want to close the book on XMRV, but many more that are continuing their work, even though they themselves are reporting about possible contamination.
     
  19. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    That is a different question but it is an interesting one. My guess is that Dr. Mikovits may feel that way based on her questions about the IAP test. Coffin, of course, would reject that. If that was true then we'd have three or four positive studies instead of one - because they did all think they found XMRV at first.

    However the Huber positives were in the healthy controls - not in the CFS patients. That finding was what made her think contamination might be present.

    The McClure and the other studies are a possibility.
     
  20. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    I don't know if that's correct; even Miller in his comment to Retrovirology about Garson et al states that he'd like to see evidence to support that assertion. In any case, and I repeat, Garson et al's observations only apply to two of the fourteen integration sites identified in prostate cancer. They could not explain the other 12 as contamination.

    I know quite a bit about population genetics, as it happens! :Retro wink: Enough to have seen that Hue et al used a tiny sampling of extremely closely related human XMRV samples.. remember, until recently very specific primers have been used and only small amounts of the genetic diversity that's out there had been detected. Also, the claim that XMRV came from 22Rv1 kind of clashes with the other contamination argument that it came from DU145, doesn't it?

    Not exactly - those three labs that found that their samples were contaminated did not find the wide difference in positivity rates between test subjects and controls that the WPI and others have. Similar results between test subjects and controls suggest contamination. Major differences suggest no contamination (and disease association).

    It showed that those labs managed to contaminate their samples. Everybody knows contamination can happen; avoiding it is the trick.

    Again, the CDC HAS detected XMRV in the Blood Working Group before, using samples from WPI pedigreed positive patients. But that was using different PCR assays that they have since abandoned...

    It is not necessary to show integration to prove infection. Integration was not the yardstick for determining whether an agent was infectious or not for the vast majority of viruses that are accepted to cause human disease. A principal way to demonstrate that a virus is infectious is to look for an immune response to it. That is precisely what the WPI and NCI have done, and they have already reported these results at conferences (take their UK study, for instance, as reported at the BPAC and XMRV Workshop). Of course those results haven't been published yet, nor have the ones about cytokine profiles specific to XMRV positive patients, but we have seen the abstracts discussing these results.
    Make no mistake - there are 'sides' in this thing, and it's politically very ugly. And the reason there have been no other publications yet are that, as I'm sure you know, they have had a great deal of difficulty getting published, just as Alter and Lo did, and as Lombardi et al did early on.. only it's gotten even harder, as a direct result of the paper after paper being pumped out by those arguing for contamination.

    You talking to me, or CBS? Or the HUGE majority of other patients who think far less of the CDC than you appear to? I guess you're the only one who can see clearly! (That's usually a 'red flag' of sorts...:D)
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page