1. Patients launch a $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!
Leptin
Andrew Gladman reflects upon the recent IACFS/ME conference and the buzz surrounding a small molecule, leptin.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV Study No. 4

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Orla, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    The reverse transcriptase of HIV has a slot that AZT binds to.If the shape of that slot changes AZT cant bind and wont work This is why you get resistance.The XMRV reverse transcriptase of xmrv has a different shape so existing hiv drugs might well not work
  2. jspotila

    jspotila Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes:
    485
    In the March CFIDS Link, Association CEO Kim McCleary addresses the media response to the negative XMRV studies, and what is still needed.

  3. bullybeef

    bullybeef Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    Likes:
    44
    North West, England, UK
    Wait a second here guys. Sorry, I’ve missed this part (keeping up isn’t my strongest point).

    Which researcher used the wrong technique, even though he not only knew of the correct methodology, but had previously used it successfully?!
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,876
    Likes:
    4,174
    We can't say it was the 'wrong technique', but apparently a different technique for finding XMRV was used with this paper (http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthr...ctors-and-XMRV) than the negative Kerr CFS/XMRV study, despite on of the researchers being the same. The Kerr study came out first. (Sorry for slipping into my own terminology - this is just how I remember things. The Kerr study was the second negative UK study).

    I really don't understand the technichalities of it. As an outsider, it makes me think the Kerr negative study is more likely to be right, as it involved a researcher who did know how to find XMRV, just not in CFS patients. We'll have to wait and see though.

    Apparently Virology blog are getting John Coffin on soon-ish - so hopefully they'll do a thorough run-down of all this for us lay-people.
  5. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    the japanese study used some sophisticated amplification techniques that the kerr study did not the difference between xmrv in healthy controls and prostate cancer was quite striking
  6. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    173
    USA.Earth
    Unaided PCR was the basis of the original WPI finding reported in the Science paper. Maybe you are thinking of the culture study? Mikovitz only started talking about pre-culturing after that paper when VIP apparently had to start pre-culturing for commercial testing. I believe she was indirectly suggesting the outside labs maybe needed to try that. If WPI actually pre-cultured prior to PCR and did not report that in the original Science study the entire finding is invalidated as it was misreported and the strongest basis of entire study is the PCR results.

    Actually negative PCR with positive culture is suggestive of cross-reactive findings in the WB of the culture study. Negative PCR in the presence of positive and negative controls that work, which is the case in virtually all of the studies so far, means the virus is not present, that is orders of magnitude a better measure than a cultured positive antibody/WB result.

    EXACTLY, there is little similarity between CFS and AIDS other than sharing re-activated herpes infections. And when an AIDS patient starts getting HHV6 or Mono activation guess what, they can get CFS too. CAA is funding a study that has literally tracked mono patients and can separate those who will get CFS from those who will not based on their cytokine responses. Some people apparently do not manage chronic herpes activation well, and that gives them (us) CFS. Not XMRV. But herpes is pretty boring and saying CFS is caused by re-activated herpes and enteroviruses will not likely ever be reported in Science, just not very sensational. But much closer to the truth I think. People with severe CFS can often recover if they can tolerate the strong antivirals required to stop that virus. Also, raising glutathione levels stops herpes replication, probably one of the reason that methylation support helps many PWC so well.

    Again, you are right on target. If you want to understand why XMRV is a poor causal hypothesis for CFS, just start with the epidemiology of CFS. It is nothing like the epidemiology of AIDS. CFS strikes people who are not drug users, have not had blood transfusions, are risk-averse, and it is in families that practice abstinence and are strictly monogamous with no STD risk factors at all over many generations. It is simply impossible for XMRV to explain the epidemiology of CFS, I was slow to realize that and initially believed the XMRV explanation, but became more analytical and studied the issue more critically once I realized this was a hypothesis about a blood-borne infection vector, because that is so unlikely for CFS.

    Speaking of HIV, one of the early clues about AIDS was the behavior patterns of the early cohorts, it quickly became clear that the infection vector was for a blood-borne virus of some type. IF you look at CFS history, particularly the outbreaks, it is clear that the infection vector is a combination of susceptible genetics or environmental preconditions, combined with airborne or food-borne viral exposure.
  7. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    No positive by culture negative by PCR means that the test was not sensitive enough because of low titre.We discussed PCR and INTEGRATED VIRUSES Activated PmBC from fresh blood is replicative ergo virus not integrated I am suprised that you seem unable to tell the difference.

    Your statement about the controls that worked is based on what degraded RNA , laced controls ,transfecting non permissive cells using inactivated cells, trying to recover Inserted XMRV with PCR! oh and misdiagnosis

    you are also quite wrong re the significance of anti AIDS drugs they would possibly restrict xmrv but not neccessarily because of a different reverse transcriptase

    XMRV is not a blood borne infective vector have you read any of the science You have a hard time finding it in blood that is the point.your view re the impossibility of XMRV as causative is based on what apart from your unfounded assumptions. Even the european trialists dont call it impossible Groom in the latest paper said that as yet it was unconfirmed the dutch trialists did not dismiss it either because their study was too small to be representative

    The epidemiology of XMRV is different because it is a different class of virus with a complely different replicative mechanism The symptom complex of aids and ME are identical different people have different symptoms but the range is the same
  8. cfs since 1998

    cfs since 1998 *****

    Messages:
    577
    Likes:
    4
    No it isn't and I find that statement quite arrogant. Two different studies in two different countries found that the risk of developing sustained CFS (2 years or longer) after mono is 3-4%, which is the same proportion of the healthy population found with XMRV.
  9. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Kurt.

    CFS according to which criteria?

    In the UK CFS is anyone with Chronic fatigue. Not a well characterised group, just sloppy criteria. I'm sure fever as a defining symptom would help no one either, except in the dark ages, where the same treatments were used, e.g. blood letting.
  10. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    173
    USA.Earth
    In my experience it is impossible, if XMRV is transmitted by blood, for that to explain CFS epidemiology. That is my experience and certainly I do not mean to imply any authority in that, experience is experience. Note that WPI is conducting a study of people with CFS who have had transfusions. This is an obvious transmission vector study.

    Please re-read my post, I know what I am talking about , know multiple people with CFS who have no possibility of blood borne viral transmission exposure, including vertical, back over 150 years. So that part of the XMRV hypothesis just does not ring true to me.

    If you want to find some other transmission vector, then fine, I will listen to that and consider seriously. I want to find answers as much as you or anyone here, but I want the right answer and am tired of grand claims that never work out.
  11. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes:
    521
    We know too little about XMRV to make ANY conclusion right now so everything is speculation. Medicine has a long history of assuming things and then when everyone sees it in hindsight, it suddenly becomes much more obvious. So I wouldn't compare CFS and HIV's epidemiolgy, clinical presentation, or therapy too much at this point.

    CFSsince1998, the numbers I've come across post-mono are 10%, based on Dubbo and the pediatric study last year. Interestingly, with Dubbo is that "95%" of their subjects recovered fully by one year, most by 2 years. Peds study - girls still sick.
  12. cfs since 1998

    cfs since 1998 *****

    Messages:
    577
    Likes:
    4
    You said, "It is simply impossible for XMRV to explain the epidemiology of CFS." That is an absurd statement considering this virus was just discovered a couple of years ago and we basically know nothing about it, and the associate with CFS was found just a few months ago. We don't know how it's transmitted. There is no way you can be throwing around assertions like that it is "impossible" for XMRV to cause CFS, not even the authors of the failed UK studies have gone that far. Why should you, have you done your own PCR studies and other experiments? Your assertions are really ridiculous.

    Experience in what? In a lab? I have no idea what you are talking about. In addition, you first said "it is impossible for XMRV to explain the epidemiology of CFS" and now you say there's no authority there, it's just your personal experience. You don't state a speculative opinion as if it were a fact using strong assertive phrases like "simply impossible." If it is your opinion then state it as such, but don't state your opinions as if they were proven scientific self-evident truths written in stone.

    Maybe that is part of the problem. You seem to know more than anyone else on any and every topic.
  13. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    173
    USA.Earth
    You are pulling my statements out of context and talking about a person and not a topic. The reference to my experience was experience in the epidemiology of CFS, I happen to know quite a few cases of CFS including in families, that is the 'experience is experience' that can not be argued with. If you think my conclusion that therefore blood-borne transmission is impossible is ridiculous, which is my belief, then fine, you are welcome to your opinion.

    You do not have to agree with anything I say but please skip the implied insults and put-downs.

    Meanwhile, do you have something constructive to say? I agree with you that this virus is in its infancy but you did not respond to my point that WPI conducting a blood transfusion history study for CFS suggests they ARE look at blood borne transmission vectors, which I believe is not supported by my experience and the experience of others.
  14. cfs since 1998

    cfs since 1998 *****

    Messages:
    577
    Likes:
    4
    I didn't respond to that part of your post because I don't understand your argument. You said, "Note that WPI is conducting a study of people with CFS who have had transfusions. This is an obvious transmission vector study." Then you said "WPI conducting a blood transfusion history study for CFS suggests they ARE look at blood borne transmission vectors". You are asserting that, because they are doing a study to determine if it's transmitted by blood, means that it is in fact transmitted by blood? If they already knew, why would they do the study? It doesn't follow. Furthermore, if XMRV is transmitted by that blood, why should that imply that it can't also be transmitted other ways?

    Saying "I know what I'm talking about" is not a valid argument and is not constructive.
  15. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    173
    USA.Earth
    According to WPI, XMRV is a slow-replicating retrovirus, found in extremely low count in the blood. They are looking into blood transfusion as an obvious vector. Those are the facts here. All I am saying by mentioning the transfusion study is that if WPI did not think XMRV was transmitted by blood I doubt they would be running that study. I don't know how XMRV is transmitted but other retroviruses such as HIV are very difficult to transmit, not even in saliva usually. Must be direct blood or body fluid contact. And XMRV is less active than HIV according to WPI, so when you consider the low copy numbers in blood cells I just don't see how XMRV could be transmitted other than by blood. Maybe there is some new retroviral vector we do not know about, but it just seems impossible to me that the likely blood-borne epidemiology of XMRV furnishes a probable explanation for CFS. That is my opinion. There are many other points that might be argued about the XMRV hypothesis, ultimately though it will be multiple validation studies that will prove the point of whether it is there and then causal model studies that will prove if it is causal, simply co-morbid, or opportunistic passenger.
  16. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes:
    653
    In all due respect I agree with CFS since...- "I know what I'm talking about is not a valid argument and not constructive"
    Also "experience is experience"

    I think that it is not fair to say unless your name is Dr Peterson, who has seen thousands of patients.
    In my opinion, WPI wants to prove that one vector is blood transfusion, in a reaction to the blood committee that says the risks are low. Dr Peterson at CFSAC said he had this one case that proved transfusion transmission. I am sure there are more cases out there.- it may be hard to prove since the transfusion needs to have occured within 7 years.

    Transmission has not been proven as of yet and in the meantime, assume that all is possible.
  17. gracenote

    gracenote All shall be well . . .

    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes:
    41
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Kurt,

    Isn't HIV also transmitted vertically? And can happen during birth and breast feeding? Isn't that also being talked about with XMRV? I know they aren't the same thing, but they do appear to have some mechanisms in common.
  18. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes:
    1,748
    Wessely School Network

    I guess most pople here already know that the Nijmegen group in the Netherlands, who carried out this latest XMRV-CFS study, are part of the Wessely School network.

    Members of the Wessely School network include:

    In the US: Bill Reeves of the CDC.
    In the UK: Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe, Anthony Cleare, Peter White, Anthony David.
    In Australia: Lloyd, Hickie, etc.
    In the Netherlands: the clinicians of the Nijmegen group.

    Mighty suspicious that the two follow up studies, in the UK and in the Netherlands, were both performed under Wessely School network influence.

    Notes on People:

    Simon Wessely often works for UNUM (a large disability insurer, and an very suspect company that has actually given a "Hungry Vulture Award" to its "deserving employees").
    Peter White (a psychiatrist) is one of the Chief Medical Officers for Swiss Re.
    Michael Sharpe, Simon Wessely and Anthony Cleare have also worked for Swiss Re.

    Simon Wessely and Anthony David are trying to overturn the WHO formal classification of ME as a neurological disorder and to re-designate ME as a psychiatric condition.

    Simon Wessely is a Corporate Officer of PRISMA. PRISMA is being paid many millions of pounds to supply "rehabilitation" programs (such as CBT and GET) to the UK's National Health Service for use on "CFS" patients.

    Notes on Organizations:

    The majority of CFS advocacy groups are not involved in legitimate or useful advocacy. This includes: in the US: The CFIDS Association of America; in the UK: Action for ME and the ME Association; in Australia: ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Society of Victoria. Most of these groups have sold out to the highest bidder. These groups benefit, either in terms of funding, influence or in other ways, by following government policy, and by their association with corporate vested interests. These groups are not helping ANYONE, except themselves.


    Sources:

    http://www.hfme.org/whobenefitsfromcfs.htm
    http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Notes_on_the_Insurance_issue_in_ME.htm
  19. bakercape

    bakercape Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Likes:
    0
    Cape Cod. Mass
    I don't

    think WPI has made any assumptions on how xmrv is transmitted. I know I read that Dr. Mikovits was looking into wether or not XMRV was in the saliva and or was possibly transmitted through saliva.

    They are obviously also looking into blood transmission or trying to prove it through a study.

    My family all got CFS in the course of 3 months. We all caught something or something was activated at the same time. I am adopted so genetic susceptibility in our caseis not a good justification for the four of us to have sudden onset CFS.

    I do agree that it would be hard toexplain the outbreaks of CFS through only a blood transmitted virus. But who is to say this virus is not transmitted more easily than HIV or in other ways.We just don't know.

    Maybe there is a period of contagousness when you are first ill. Then after this it hides in other tissue and is not as easily transmitted. This would explain outbreaks and why not everyone has the virus. Just my pet theory.

    I still believe it is possible that XMRV could be the cause or contributing to a large percentageof CFS cases. It is too early to know either way.
  20. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes:
    521
    I'm glad they're looking beyond blood to saliva.

    Aside from Defreitas, there are a few studies where healthy non-blood related contacts (e.g. non-sexual relationships like friends, co-workers) of CFS sufferers have similar changes in immunologic markers compared to non-exposed healthy controls. These are fascinating to me.

    Not involving myself but I know of one neighborhood cluster involving 5 friends with no sexual relations involved. I can see people sharing food/ drinks in social situations.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page