VillageLife
Senior Member
- Messages
- 674
- Location
- United Kingdom
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
If anyone can recall the discussion, the hospital with one of the earliest outbreaks of what seems very much to be ME was involved in early mouse and primate research into viruses, in California (the 1932, 1934 outbreak). I wish I had more information about this but it keeps dead ending on me. [/I]
Even if MLVs have nothing to do with ME, there is a clear risk that these cell cultures may infect people in the future.
Hi Alex,
I believe the outbreak you are referring to is that of Los Angeles County in 1934.
In 1938, the US government published Public Health Bulletin No.240 titled as follows:
Epidemiological Study on an Epidemic, Diagnosed as Poliomyelitis, Occurring among the Personnel of Los Angeles County General Hospital during the summer of 1934. Gilliam, AG (1938).
We propose that XMRV replicates efficiently in prostate epithelial cells by downregulating A3G (APOBEC3G) expression. Given that XMRV lacks accessory proteins such as HIV-1 Vif that are known to counteract A3G function in human cells, our data suggest a novel mechanism by which retroviruses can counteract the antiviral effects of A3G proteins.
The environment is stock full of viruses, we get them all time from animals we are killing, butchering and eating and we have eaten animal for over a million years, probably much longer. We injured and have been injured by other animals for a very long time and had lots of chances of exchanging viruses. If mouse viruses got into humans, it has already happened 10.000 years ago. The main threat are pathogens from close relatives (SIV->HIV).
Hi Tony Mach, I disagree for two reasons.
1. As I explained, the restriction factors including APOBEC3G are in the BLOOD. Tissues in the lung are directly vulnerable, it does not have to pass through blood.
2. Pursuant to point one, what we expect to see with such defences is a low rate of infection, not a zero rate of infection. These are not infallible protective mechanisms.
So I again assert there is a clear RISK. Risk is NOT about certainty, its about covering your ass and protecting yourself. Ignoring risk puts everyone at peril. You might get away with it 999 out of a thousand in the biosciences and especially pathogen research, but that one time could be a catastrophe. Risk managment is mandated in pathogen research, its not optional. Anyone who is in pathogen research who thinks its optional should be barred from all further research, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law if anything goes wrong.
Bye, Alex
I agree with your premise that 'bushmeat' theories of viral transmission can reasonably be expected to have exchanged viruses between animals and humans of the order of 10,000 years ago, and on that basis I consider that any new viruses and diseases that have occurred in humans within a much more recent timeframe are highly unlikely to be explained simply by 'bushmeat' theories. Your argument seems to say the same thing - but in that case I'm confused as to why you make an exception for close relatives (SIV -> HIV), and surprised that this understanding doesn't focus you on wondering how new human diseases like AIDS and ME have emerged within such a historically recent timeframe.
I don't understand why you don't think there's a 'viable hypothesis' here, Tony. It's now known that novel retroviruses that can infect human cells are being accidentally created in labs, and this has been known to scientists since the 1970s - true? It's also known that these retroviruses have been spreading worldwide, in labs, without being recognised - true? It's further known that animal vaccines have been known to become unknowingly contaminated with retroviruses and transmitted across species - agreed? Retroviruses typically cause immune and neurological dysfunction, yes? You're aware of the outbreak of a novel form of narcolepsy in Finland, and then reported by 9 other countries, which has been associated with the H1N1 vaccine and with certain susceptible genetic types? And we all have a new kind of neuroimmune disease, yes? And this paper does warn of the dangers involved in handling these lab-created viruses, doesn't it? Surely there is at least a 'viable hypothesis' here?No, there is no prove, not even a viable hypothesis, just fearmongering BS.
Where did Alex post anything 'as if it were proof' of this? He clearly said this is a 'risk', and not certainty. I read nothing Alex posted that suggests this paper is 'proof' of anything. Please don't misrepresent what he said.You post this as if this were proof that there are retroviruses (other than HIV) circulating in humans...
Yes, of course there are! Surely you're aware of HTLV if you're posting with such conviction on this subject?...no, there aren't.
Please calm down Tony. XMRV, PMLVs, HRGVs, retroviruses in general are clearly going to continue to be discussed on this forum along with a wide range of other subjects. I can't see any BS in the discussion above, and if you are intending to react to any such discussion with anger and aggression then that won't do any of us any favours. If you would prefer everyone to focus on different research, then it would be better to focus positive energy on that, because focusing negative energy on people discussing MLVs is only likely to fuel fires.I am sick and tired of this BS and I am not going to take it anymore.
I wonder if this Ruscetti paper has been published by mistake.....surely we are to expect another forced retraction...?
This paper destroys the Paprotka argument that "XMRV" was a unique event. It is clear that XMLVs exist in other cell lines and are infectious in human tissues.
"The propensity for acquisition of a virus may depend on the strain of mouse, the means of immune suppression, the characteristics of the xenografted tumor, and whether the experimental protocol includes any additional factors,(chemical exposure, radiation,) that could promote the activation of an endogenous virus."
What about the biosafety issues here on the handling of this cell line in the lab?
Yes, of course there are! Surely you're aware of HTLV if you're posting with such conviction on this subject?