Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Levi, Oct 19, 2009.
Cleveland Clinic and National Cancer Institute reproduced the results.
It looks like Jonathan Kerr is going to try to replicate the results.
I have no idea what this German study means.
However, we do not want to get over confused. As far as I recall, Jonathan Kerr's name was not on this study. He would be an obvious person to try to get similar results, using similar means. Dr. Enlander seemed to indicate yesterday that he was sending blood samples to Kerr, in order to facilitate things. As you know, Kerr and Enlander have worked together before. Jonathan Kerr is a serious researcher. Kerr also collaborates with the WPI. There is no way that this association would disqualify him from trying to get the same results (or not) as the WPI. In spite of what one would like to think, everyone is not going to be plunging into this to try to substantiate it. The replication (or non-replication) is going to come from people and alliances (cancer) that are favorably inclined. Discredit and debunking is going to come from the other side. However, science remains science and we will see. This is not a beauty contest with awards to the most beautiful and well connected.
Here is Cort's response to mention of this study. It can be found in the XMRV - Hope and Caution link. (He doesn't cite this new study.)
Was this the same type of prostate cancer?
Seems to me in the earlier study the XMRV was found only in a percentage of patients with a particularly aggressive type of prostate cancer.
I can't decipher the scientific lingo, so not sure if these patients had the same form of cancer...
Our local Bond University here in Australia has just been given $2.000,000 for research for a test for CFS...just as the news of XMRV was announced. I dont want this money wasted in wages as my my Doc who has CFS thinks it will be.
They are coming to our support group next month asking for blood and explaining what they are doing..... They were working on Neuropeptides dont know what now. I would love to fire some really good questions to them about exactly what we want them to do...but what? I am sure they will be working with WPI ...I will ask. Has anyone got any good questions I could ask?
You can check out a summary of the following two studies at ScienceDaily. It's all too much for my brain right now except to acknowledge that replication of WPI's studies will need to be done with care and may take time.
Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related Virus May Not Be Associated With Human Prostate Cancer October 15, 2009
First Evidence Of Virus In Malignant Prostate Cells: XMRV Retrovirus Linked To More Aggressive Tumors September 8, 2009
Interesting, susan. Why don't you re-post your question elsewhere, maybe as its own thread.
re the German study
An important point from that blog: Dr. Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, who originally discovered the virus, noted that the techniques used in Germany to look for the virus "are significantly different from the methods we use.... It is possible that the methods used may have missed detecting XMRV."
With new pathogens, the method of detection is key. If it wasn't key then the work would already been done by someone else. Two pathogens come to mind. Helicobacter Pylori. Marshall & Warren had to discover new methods of finding this illusive bug. The other is Chlamydia pneumoniae. If you read through the Stratton patents, a substantial portion is devoted to how to detect it.
So I can imagine that there are two ways of detecting XMRV. One which works (the WPI way) and one which is almost guaranteed not to work (the German method). So like everything else its going to come down to politics. Which is why the WPI work needs to be replicated by friendly (or at least neutral) parties to build up enough momentum so that the work can not be simply dismissed by the opposing camp.
Thanks for the input Garcia - it's good to see you here, although I guess you've been here longer than I have!
Key point and thanks for making it.
This also speaks to individual testing and, perhaps, the wisdom of waiting for a test which is supported by WPI so that our results will be consistent with their methods.
Hi,all; I think this is going to be an ongoing story for a while yet; there is a Dr. Paul Jolicoeur at L'Institut de recherche clinique at the University of Montreal (in Montreal) who is working on trying to replicate the results of the WPI --I have no information on just how, but he is a retroviral specialist and probably knows what he is doing. In hope, Chris
This issue was also addressed during the CFSAC meetings. I believe the current thinking is that the testing method was different.
O I'm sorry. I just was reading about that last night and didn't see it on the forum already (not that I even looked!).
Nothing to be sorry about. Plenty of duplicate threads around here, just comes with the territory.
My brain is overcooked farina. Sigh.
Thanks for the valuable link to the virology blog by Vincent Racaniello Ph.D. It's the best virology website I've seen so far.
I love Racaniello's attitude: "Since I think about viruses every day, and I have always been interested in teaching others about viruses, this blog seemed to be an ideal forum to convey some of my knowledge on this topic."
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.