Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by VillageLife, Apr 12, 2010.
this thread is getting hilarious ;-)
The WPI's mantra is definitely "We'll be back!" [In Arnie's dodgy Austrian-American accent]
Because they won't go away
Willem Butler of the dutch me-cvs stichting writes on their website that Kuppeveld is willing to accept the WPI offer.
Van Kuppeveld wil ook wel ingaan op dit aanbod van het WPI, verklaart hij desgevraagd. Heeft hij daar dan wel de tijd en de middelen voor? Eigenlijk niet, maar hij vindt dit zulk belangwekkend onderzoek dat hij daar wel ruimte voor wil maken. Het kost de wereld niet.
Thanks lansbergen. This is an interesting developement (if it turns out to be correct).
At this rate Wesselly and Co won't have a team left.
this is the english translation , it doesnt translate great but you get the jist
Nijmegen will be testing blood samples of the WPI
The hunt for XMRV in the USA, UK and Netherlands
The website of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) is a revealing letter to Dr Wessely McClure of the British team. For information, the WPI found XMRV in under two thirds of the CVS patients studied, while two British and a Dutch research team could not find the retrovirus.
The letter reveals Annette Whittemore that the samples tested by the WPI for his Science study, not from the CVS outbreak in Incline Village (Nevada) in the eighties (known as the "Lake Tahoe outbreak" called). So both the Dutch researchers Kuppeveld (photo) cs as Suzanne Vernon were wrong in their assumption that the difference in study results could be due to a difference in patient selection.
Showdown 2. The WPI has examined blood samples from the Kerr-British team and the Dutch team of Van Kuppeveld, and guess what? The WPI discovered the retrovirus containing it! Moreover, the WPI a positive blood sample sent to Nijmegen, asking to see if they test their method could also detect XMRV. The WPI regrets that the Nijmegen team there in his article does not mention.
Call with Dr. Van Kuppeveld in Nijmegen. Yes, he had a positive sample of the WPI received and they were also tested. The result: positive! Van Kuppeveld evidence that their testing technique okay Sat
Annette Whittemore just think that the difference in study results can be attributed to the technique. Let us first make sure that the technique is good, before we fly together to capture the issue of patient selection, she writes.
That's why they now McClure blood samples to share. The WPI sends positive blood samples and reagents (chemicals) in sufficient numbers to McClure, and conversely receives like monsters from the United Kingdom. In fact this is what Charles Shepherd already suggested: to exchange samples. It is the only way to XMRV-deadlock.
From Kuppeveld will also discuss the offer of the WPI, he explains when asked. Did he or the time and resources? Not really, but he thinks this is such interesting research that he wants to make space for it. It costs the world does not.
This is a positive response from the Nijmegen virologist. Still a positive replication, hope many CFS patients. For a subgroup of the CFS population (thirds?) Would be greatly facilitated by the discovery of a unique biological substrate. So let's hope that Van Kuppeveld quick contact Annette Whittemore.
Thanks Polly for the translation.
Best bits for me were:
i often find translations somewhat hilarious lmao it did bring a smile to my face when i read it . hmm ....conversely receives like monsters from the United Kingdom i suppose some folk could see weasels as being monsters ;-)
Thanks Lansbergen!... this is the best, however, that Google Translate could do with a key passage; if anyone can provide a better translation of the section in bold below, I would appreciate it:
I may not be understanding this mangling correctly; in the bolded section, is this writer saying he called Kuppeveld, and Kuppeveld said he received a positive patient sample from the WPI, tested it using the Dutch methodology, and the result was positive for XMRV? If I understood correctly, that confirms Annette Whittemore's assertion that the WPI sent a positive sample to the Dutch group; the question remains then: why this is the first time anyone is hearing of it? And was this a WPI patient sample that Kuppeveld tested, or a positive control? I assume the former, but if so isn't it MAJOR news if the Dutch group found XMRV in a WPI sample?? (i.e. at least one case of validation?) If all these "if"s and assumptions are correct, then I can't understand why on earth the Dutch team did not include that 'little' nugget either in their original paper or -- if they ran the test for some reason after they sent the manuscript for publication -- in an addendum or (at minimum) press release.
All this needs some serious clarification (incl. better translation), of course, and especially verification of the report's accuracy.
Yes, quick contact, quick!
Kevin Spacey avid Bell
Also definitely think Hugh Laurie for Paul Cheney.
For the Weasal, we really need someone who can pull off upper class twerp well - the problem is though he has so many sides - charming yet evil aswel.
When I saw him speak in Auckland he was wearing the most ludicrous bow tie - i'm surprised Kiwis took him seriously. So how about - well who I can't think of. Cunning and rat like - hey how about Bill Reeeves. Seriously though any of you noticed how Reeeves looks like Dr Shipman the mass murderer in Hyde, Cheshire. V. uncanny.
didn't WPI letter say that they also detected positives in the UK and Dutch samples?
@ dr yes ........quote I may not be understanding this mangling correctly; in the bolded section, is this writer saying he called Kuppeveld, and Kuppeveld said he received a positive sample from the WPI, tested it using the Dutch methodology, and the result was positive for XMRV? (And thus, he assumes his methodology is effective?) I assume he means that at the time of the study he did this test on the WPI sample. If I understood correctly, that confirms Annette Whittemore's assertion that the WPI sent a positive sample to the Dutch group
that was my take on it that this guy has rung him up and hes admitted getting a wpi sample but that he tested it usuing his methods so therefore his test is fine and hunky dory as it also tested it pos so therefore his test in his eyes is working fine .
i see also hes interested in working on this now i thought he thought his work was done on xmrv that it was pointless ......... amazing how folk suddenly change tack
The way I read it the writer states he called van Kuppeveld.
As I understand it he tested a sample from the WPI and that was found positive. Whether it was done with his methode or the WPI methode is not clear to me.
( I assume he means that at the time of the study he did this test on the WPI sample. )
I think you are right.
Can Maarten help with this translation....??
Yes A.W. did say so:
Maarten - Thanks for the clarification! So according to the Dutch blog report :worried:...
Kuppevald never contacted the WPI afterward, so the WPI assumed (perhaps :Retro wink that he never tested their sample. But it seems that he did; my understanding then is that he used his own methodology, not the WPI's, since he considered the positive result a validation of his group's methodology. However, as Maarten correctly pointed out, this does not address the issues of old blood, etc, that have been discussed on this forum before... Cohort selection still needs to be examined as well.
The major news if this report is accurate is that at least one WPI patient sample was confirmed positive for XMRV using a different methodology. A single sample, but still big news, relatively speaking!
Many thanks to lansbergen and to Maarten. I will not thank Polly until she mails me a Yorkshire pud.
Jeez, Maarten, quit jumping up behind me like that !
So, Kuppevald's technique is ok. Kuppevald's samples are not.
the translation was courtesy of google lol i merely copied and pasted , im afraid if id have translated it youd have all been confused even further ;-)
So that means cohorts are different! Can't be excluded as a problem.
I'm still confused. If the WPI tested one of his patients, they were positive, then were was that patient in the study, if his test works?
absolutely correct and his samples were knackered
Wow, maybe this means the Oxford definition is rubbish....... we never saw that coming :innocent1:
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.