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!
Ergonomics and ME/CFS: Have You Hurt Yourself Without Knowing It?
Having a chronic illness like ME/CFS can make it hard to avoid problems that come from bad ergonomics. Jody Smith has learned some lessons the hard way ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV CROI abstract - Viral Kinetics, Tissue Tropism, and Ser. Markers of Infection

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Esther12, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes:
    5,602
  2. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Wow, thanks Esther.

    Well, look at that! CD4/8 and NK cells! Sound familiar?

    I have to admit that this was painful to read. I understand why animal studies are so important to medical science but I just wish there was another way. Primates are so amazing and beautiful. :(
     
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

  4. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes:
    1,545
    Esther this is fantastic, thank you. We now understand why the CDC thinks that Reeves had to go???


    In regards to primates, it is indeed sad for these animals, however necessary for advance of research. I am thankful that the studies are coming out and there are lots of people that are working in the XMRV research, clinically, in the lab and eventually politically.
     
  5. gracenote

    gracenote All shall be well . . .

    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes:
    42
    Santa Rosa, CA
     
  6. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Oh, and Esther? Your title is a little incorrect.

    Donors are a biased sample of the US population (and the results are preliminary...)

    Would it be OK if I changed it?
     
  7. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes:
    1,545
    I concur Robin, it should read donors
     
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes:
    5,602
    Sure - I'd just noticed that myself. Thanks.
     
  9. _Kim_

    _Kim_ Guest

    I changed the title, but there are so many other important aspects to this report besides the 0.1% XMRV positivity in blood donors.

    I think the title should reflect the whole abstract:
    "XMRV: Examination of Viral Kinetics, Tissue Tropism, and Serological Markers of Infection"
     
  10. George

    George Guest

    umm, guys what they are trying to say is that a very low proportion of blood samples showed Antibodies, what would equal less than 0.1% of their blood donors. This virus seems to have the ability to sneak by the immune system without creating an antibody response. That they have found. for now. we'll see.
     
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes:
    5,602
    I'm happy for you to change to title to whatever you think's best. I just chose the part which stood out most to me.
     
  12. acer2000

    acer2000 Senior Member

    Messages:
    589
    Likes:
    232
    The study of blood donors is somewhat biased. Even though there are no tests for XMRV, the screening process should effectively exclude people with symptoms of CFS or recent major illness and also people deemed generally "high risk" such as risky sexual behavoir, sharing needles, gay men - regardless of their sexual practices, certain travel histories, etc... Apparently some people try to donate anyways and/or lie on the questionaire, and the screening process isn't perfect. Even controlling for the screening process, not everyone donates blood - the donors are probably skewed to certain demographics. Plus, they can't check every unit of blood, they only checked a subset of for ths study. Saying there is a 0.1% hit rate is better than saying it doesn't exist - but it isn't neccesarily representative of the rate of infection in the general population. I suspect the rate of infection is much higher than the percentage of infection that shows up in blood screening studies.
     
  13. George

    George Guest

    I suspect that an Antibody test isn't going to work, very well.
     
  14. Robin

    Robin Guest

    So....only .1% of donors would show antibodies if they had an infection? Not.... .1% of blood supply might be infected?

    i'm confused! help!
     
  15. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes:
    5,602
    Well - it seems I rather misunderstood the abstract for this paper. Lucky I posted it here for other to comment!
     
  16. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

     
  17. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    From what i,ve read the prevelance of antibodies to xmrv in healthy blood is about 3 in 2700 samples.The prevelance in US doners seems much higher than that
     
  18. FernRhizome

    FernRhizome Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    0
    Could someone direct me to where the original text came from that mentions the .1% in blood donors? I don't see that in the abstract. Would love to know what paper or abstract that came from. Thanks. ~Fern
     
  19. Lesley

    Lesley Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Likes:
    0
    Southeastern US
    Fern,

    It's the last sentence under "Results" in the abstract.
    :Retro smile:
     
  20. FernRhizome

    FernRhizome Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    0
    Thank you Lesley!!!! It's so easy to miss a sentence with brain fog! I guess it's so low because so few of us can give blood. ~Fern
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page