• 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 (FM), 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.

At this point, how likely do you think it is that HMRVs are the cause of CFS/ME?

At this point, how likely do you think it is that HMRVs are the cause of CFS/ME?

  • 70-100%

    Votes: 29 42.0%
  • 40-69%

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • 10-39%

    Votes: 12 17.4%
  • 2-9%

    Votes: 8 11.6%
  • 0-1%

    Votes: 14 20.3%

  • Total voters
    69
Messages
88
Location
Canada Niagara Falls
Hi Daffodil, I couldnt agree with you more:) Retro virus fits!

Also when we think of a genetic factor as being a causasion, retro virus can be encoded to our genes (HERVS):D
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
The partial retraction of the Science paper explains why no one can find XMRV using VP62 as the reference virus. VP62 is an artificial construct, it seems, and not a naturally existing virus.
So for me, this can explain why there have been so many negative studies, why Alter and Mikovits have detected HGRV's where others haven't, and it explains the discrepancies between Mikovits' and Alter's viruses, or variants.

I'm still working out what it all means though, and haven't got completely up to date with all the details yet.

The BWG was pretty irrelevant for me, because there were so many unfavourable factors and unknown variables in it anyway. I never expected it to show more than a mixed result anyway. Although I must admit that i was surprised by the results. My understanding is that Mikovits was not free to choose her own methodology for the BWG, although I don't know the details.

Let's not forget the multiple prostate cancer studies and the two ME studies that found differences between ME patients and healthy controls. Even if there is no virus involved, then these would be very useful biomarker studies. Something is going on.

I agree that there are more questions than answers right now. But the BWG group was just one study. I don't think that undue prominence should be placed upon it, especially as the methodology used might have been very far removed from Mikovits' ideal methodology.

Scientists can construct viruses in the lab that perform perfectly well and they can tweak existing viruses to change how they function. So long as VP62 can actively pump out infectious viruses I don't see how it matters.

Dr. Mikovits was able to use techniques of her choosing - the same techniques she used at the WPI and ended up asserting that half the healthy controls had XMRV! You could say that unfavorable factor influenced her ability to find XMRV but those had nothing to do with her and Dr. Ruscetti's finding XMRV in a host of people who couldn't possible have it - if their original study was correct.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Scientists can construct viruses in the lab that perform perfectly well and they can tweak existing viruses to change how they function. So long as VP62 can actively pump out infectious viruses I don't see how it matters.

But VP62 does not exist in nature, as far as we are now told. As far as we know, it is purely an artificial construct of Silverman's making.

Yes, Coffin says he found VP62 in the 22RV1 cell line, but it would be rather a coincidence if his virus is actually identical to VP62 which was invented in a lab by Silverman.

And I don't think that Coffin fully sequenced it (or did he?), in which case it's likely that he did not detect VP62, but detected something similar.

But there do seem to be more questions than answers.


Dr. Mikovits was able to use techniques of her choosing - the same techniques she used at the WPI and ended up asserting that half the healthy controls had XMRV! You could say that unfavorable factor influenced her ability to find XMRV but those had nothing to do with her and Dr. Ruscetti's finding XMRV in a host of people who couldn't possible have it - if their original study was correct.

Yes, I have read the BWG study now, and my opinions have changed drastically... I tend to agree with you on this point.
 

kurt

Senior Member
Messages
1,186
Location
USA
well mikoivts has seen the virus budding out of the cells of CFS patients. that counts for something. and i am 110% sure it a retrovirus.

How can you be so sure? Mikovits to my knowledge did not claim to have proven that she saw XMRV budding out of cells. What she saw was never sequenced, but since its size matched a gamma size particle, she predicted it might be XMRV. There has been no proof of that and in fact there are thousands of viruses out there so how can you be certain it was XMRV? In fact, many HERVs can be that same size, and her procedure just might have induced HERV expression. Or there might be some other explanation, such as contamination of her experiment.