Article: What Science Giveth Science Try to Taketh Away: Science Journal Asks WPI To Retract XMRV CF

Article: What Science Giveth Science Try to Taketh Away: Science Journal Asks WPI To

You can view the page at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?435-What-Science-Giveth-Science-Taketh-Away-Science-Journal-Asks-WPI-To-Retract-XMRV-CFS-Paper

 

$$$$$$ & Politics; Politics & $$$$$. Who really cares about those who suffer the misery of ME/cfs? Until......it becomes them!!

 

The whole reason XMRV was found, Cort was because researchers were looking for a sexually transmitted virus. Prostate cancer has tripled in all age groups in the last thirty years. XMRV has been found in prostate tissues, (not the blood), and prostate cancer is the only cancer to be LESS common in HIV positive individuals on antiretrovirals, (as the antiretrovirals are also effective against XMRV.)
All the evidence is that prostate cancer is transmissible, and XMRV is a likely cause. XMRV does infect humans and can be passed on.

We need to look for XMRV in the tissues of CFS/ME patients. Everyone knows it is in very low copy numbers in blood. Until tissue studies are done it is WAY TOO SOON to try to stop this research.

 

Yes, Jace you are correct - but the CDC's finding it in 'transiently' in a few of their employees and none of their CFS patients - using the same tests - really doesn't do anything for CFS...In fact it hurts XMRV in CFS because it suggests that the CDC can find XMRV (the WPI says they cannot) - and that therefore it is not in the patients they were looking at. Even if they weren't good CFS patients it should have shown up in background levels.


I don't believe the CDC ever said that they'd been able to find XMRV in their lab employees - at the CROI, it was Mike Bush, Director of Blood Systems Research, who mentioned that some of his workers had tested positive. This info was posted on the forum at


http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...r-CDC-looking-for-XMRV-and-MLV-in-lab-workers!


There's a link to the CROI video there, and it still works.

Just wondering, did the CDC ever actually make any verifiable announcements that their own employees ended up testing positive? The last I heard, they were only "looking".

 

Yes, they are asking the WPI to do something very difficult - pull their own paper - but they are also placing a stake in the sand themselves; they're saying we bet our Journals reputation on the fact that XMRV is not going to work out. For me that is the most salient fact..

To me it looks like they are playing both sides. They issued a stern warning, so to speak, but they leave the backdoor open for the BWG and Lipkin studies. They can't lose much of their reputation, whatever the outcome.

 

I agree with those who suggest withdrawl or retraction is premature. There are too many important studies coming down the pike and soon. Science has weight, and this action seems a bit wreckless to me.

There is a facebook page in support of their NOT retracting the article. If the numbers get high enough, I think it could show Science that there are patients who support the continuation of research. If you're interested you can "like" it here:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/...-Retraction-of-Lombardi-et-al/134502569957481

Keep on keepin on everyone! Just another blip.

 

Yes, Jace you are correct - but the CDC's finding it in 'transiently' in a few of their employees and none of their CFS patients - using the same tests - really doesn't do anything for CFS...In fact it hurts XMRV in CFS because it suggests that the CDC can find XMRV (the WPI says they cannot) - and that therefore it is not in the patients they were looking at. Even if they weren't good CFS patients it should have shown up in background levels.


I don't believe the CDC ever said that they'd been able to find XMRV in their lab employees - at the CROI, it was Mike Bush, Director of Blood Systems Research, who mentioned that some of his workers had tested positive. This info was posted on the forum at


http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...r-CDC-looking-for-XMRV-and-MLV-in-lab-workers!


There's a link to the CROI video there, and it still works.

Just wondering, did the CDC ever actually make any verifiable announcements that their own employees ended up testing positive? The last I heard, they were only "looking".

My recollection was that Swizter acknowledged that he had found the same thing...that does make two labs, though...

 

To me it looks like they are playing both sides. They issued a stern warning, so to speak, but they leave the backdoor open for the BWG and Lipkin studies. They can't lose much of their reputation, whatever the outcome.

Yes, they are kind of having it both ways...they ask the WPI to retract the paper but then when the WPI refuses - they don't retract the paper....there seems to be a lapse in logic there. There may be higher standards, though, for a journal to retract a paper than for an author to.....

 

Here is the first paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/e...ract?sid=49f390a0-8119-421b-bf83-edb632e90f73
"No Evidence of Murine-Like Gammaretroviruses in CFS Patients Previously Identified as XMRV-Infected"

 

You're right - the Cleveland Clinic and the NCI did find it in the original paper. I stand corrected. It's also true that 28 other labs have not been able to find it - I think that's the main problem..

Lo/Alter did not find 'XMRV'; they found pMLV's - yes, they felt that the pMLV's might fit within a larger XMRV family but they did not find XMRV itself; the gene sequences they found were associated most closely with pMLV's not XMRV.

You cannot count 28 labs as if they all meant something. Some of those are clearly spurious, as they used stunningly bad inclusions and methods--used samples which had been thawed and refrozen multiple times, samples which had been actively screened to remove those which had any evidence of the patient having any kind of infection, didn't bother to use any sort of controls, and so forth.

Secondly, the genetic variability between pMLV's and XMRV is less than that between different strains of HIV-1. I appreciate that there's a difference in what they are able to infect, but it seems silly--and political--to say that Lo doesn't count as replicating, particularly when Lo et al. specifically said their paper "clearly support the central argument by Lombardi et al. that MLV-related viruses are associated with CFS and are present in some blood donors." If you argue that it doesn't count, you're contradicting none other than Dr. Harvey Alter.

 

Dr. Brian Goldman (the host) says illnesses like ME/CFS, FM, need a marketing campaign to raise the level of respect of ME/CFS or FM.

CAA and CDC tried that, and it didn't work. Bottom line is, health authority tells doctors the disease is confusing and has no answers, and they believe the disease is hogwash and the patients who have that label are undeserving and possibly faking it.

We need research, and we need the health authorities to acknowledge the disease pathology. From that, respect will follow. A better name would help a lot, too.

 

CAA and CDC tried that, and it didn't work. Bottom line is, health authority tells doctors the disease is confusing and has no answers, and they believe the disease is hogwash and the patients who have that label are undeserving and possibly faking it.

We need research, and we need the health authorities to acknowledge the disease pathology. From that, respect will follow. A better name would help a lot, too.

In fact we need the WPI and Judy Mikovits.

 

In fact we need the WPI and Judy Mikovits.

we most certainly do

 

Have people figured out they've been scammed yet? Or is the denial still too strong? How much more evidence is needed, with dozens of negative paper and essentially only one positive paper - from the people who are making money from a positive paper, what a coincidence.

Research needs to go into the mitochondrial & cellular energy/ATP production defects that are DOCUMENTED in ME/CFS and the interplay with the immune system dysfunctions that are also DOCUMENTED. XRMV is a red herring at best - a minor player if at all that would only be significant if it did play a part in CFS because of the already existing mito & neurommimune dysfunction. Better just to cut your losses and move on. Putting all your eggs in the XMRV basket is only going to delay the disappointment further.

 

Mr.Kite - Even if the WPI results are in error, they are in good company - the list of researchers who have coauthored articles with positive XMRV findings in humans is not short. A honest mistake is a far cry from a scam. I suggest you retract your comment.

 

Mr.Kite - Even if the WPI results are in error, they are in good company - the list of researchers who have coauthored articles with positive XMRV findings in humans is not short. A honest mistake is a far cry from a scam. I suggest you retract your comment.

Exactly so. I recommend a retraction of the "scam" and "denial" comments as well.

We need both other-than-XMRV research and to see the XMRV research to the end, so we will know for sure one way or the other. At this point we do not know for sure.

http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/FinalreplytoScienceWPI.pdf

 

Have people figured out they've been scammed yet? Or is the denial still too strong? How much more evidence is needed, with dozens of negative paper and essentially only one positive paper - from the people who are making money from a positive paper, what a coincidence.

Research needs to go into the mitochondrial & cellular energy/ATP production defects that are DOCUMENTED in ME/CFS and the interplay with the immune system dysfunctions that are also DOCUMENTED. XRMV is a red herring at best - a minor player if at all that would only be significant if it did play a part in CFS because of the already existing mito & neurommimune dysfunction. Better just to cut your losses and move on. Putting all your eggs in the XMRV basket is only going to delay the disappointment further.

If you look at all of the unfolding evidence, Mr Kite, and not just the negative studies, then it doesn't look like a scam to me at all.
For example, there now seems to be a considerable scientific consensus that XMRV is a wild human virus.
Also, don't you think that it is possible that the mitochondrial and immune issues that you refer to might possibly have a viral cause, whether XMRV or another virus?

 

My recollection was that Swizter acknowledged that he had found the same thing...that does make two labs, though...

Actually, Switzer said at the time that they'd found simian retroviruses in the workers, NOT XMRV. He was going to look closer. I took another look at the video from CROI. It is accurately transcribed by the post I referenced. So no, the CDC had not been able (at least at the time of the CROI conference) to find XMRV in its workers but they were very interested in looking since they felt it might be an issue. So it's incorrect to say that the CDC's findings hurt XMRV in CFS, since they hadn't been able to find XMRV in non-CFS patients either. And WPI was correct to point out that they couldn't find XMRV.

 

Oops, I did not handle the quotation function correctly - in the above post I'm responding to a quote by Cort, not by me! Sorry. A bad brain day.

 

You cannot count 28 labs as if they all meant something. Some of those are clearly spurious, as they used stunningly bad inclusions and methods--used samples which had been thawed and refrozen multiple times, samples which had been actively screened to remove those which had any evidence of the patient having any kind of infection, didn't bother to use any sort of controls, and so forth.

Secondly, the genetic variability between pMLV's and XMRV is less than that between different strains of HIV-1. I appreciate that there's a difference in what they are able to infect, but it seems silly--and political--to say that Lo doesn't count as replicating, particularly when Lo et al. specifically said their paper "clearly support the central argument by Lombardi et al. that MLV-related viruses are associated with CFS and are present in some blood donors." If you argue that it doesn't count, you're contradicting none other than Dr. Harvey Alter.

Of course there were poor studies in there and there were very good studies and there were in-between studies. The point is alot of people have looked for it and no one has been able to find it....That is alot of studies...alot of mistakes alot of labs have to make in order to miss XMRV. Singh tried from 9-12 tests per sample......

Look more carefully at what you wrote...Lo/Alter never said that they found XMRV;When I asked Dr. Alter if he knew why he said because it wasn't there...They found pMLV's...yes,.they felt they could support the central theory of Lombardi (I don't know if they feel that now) but they did not find XMRV.

 

Science is working, Patients must allow it to proceed

Of course there were poor studies in there and there were very good studies and there were in-between studies. The point is alot of people have looked for it and no one has been able to find it....That is alot of studies...alot of mistakes alot of labs have to make in order to miss XMRV. Singh tried from 9-12 tests per sample......

Look more carefully at what you wrote...Lo/Alter never said that they found XMRV;When I asked Dr. Alter if he knew why he said because it wasn't there...They found pMLV's...yes,.they felt they could support the central theory of Lombardi (I don't know if they feel that now) but they did not find XMRV.

THe Virus Hunter
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...dy-that-sparked-ban-may-have-been-flawed.html
Clinical Trial
The study of 150 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and another 150 healthy volunteers should be complete by early 2012, said Ian Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, who is leading the effort. Until the research is complete, its too soon to know whether there is a link between a virus and chronic fatigue, he said.

Calls to retract the paper at this point are premature, said Lipkin, director of Columbias Center for Infection and Immunity, in a telephone interview. We need to let this study take its course, look at the data in a coherent fashion and figure out what it tells us. While interesting, the publications dont dissuade us from continuing our work.