Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
5 October 2011: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.574.html
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.
Mikovits says that the Science paper didn't mention the azacytidine treatment because that detail was not necessary for the publication. Instead, the authors referred to the samples as being 'activated'. But for her presentation, she wanted to emphasize that the addition of methyl groups to viral nucleic acids may have prevented the virus from being detected using standard assays. Azacytidine strips off those methyl groups and, Mikovits argues, can boost viral gene expression.
If I were a researcher, I'd be pissed that they left this vital detail out of the original Science article.
Mikovits says that the Science paper didn't mention the azacytidine treatment because that detail was not necessary for the publication. Instead, the authors referred to the samples as being 'activated'. But for her presentation, she wanted to emphasize that the addition of methyl groups to viral nucleic acids may have prevented the virus from being detected using standard assays. Azacytidine strips off those methyl groups and, Mikovits argues, can boost viral gene expression.
If I were a researcher, I'd be pissed that they left this vital detail out of the original Science article. There is more to it then that as well where Patient sample 2905 in lane 3 and patient sample 1674 in lane 6 are treated with 5-azacytidine in the original experiment. This is not disclosed in the Science paper.
B. At the Ottawa talk
Lane 1 (T cells in the original experiment) is described as Normal PBMC
Lane 2 (T cells in the original experiment) is described as 2905 PBMC
- In other words a non patient control sample is being described as a patient sample in the talk.
Lane 5(PBMC4/10 in the original experiment) is described as patient 1674
- Again, describing a non patient control as a patient sample.
From the Nature article:
"Mikovits says that the Science paper didn't mention the azacytidine treatment because that detail was not necessary for the publication. Instead, the authors referred to the samples as being 'activated'. But for her presentation, she wanted to emphasize that the addition of methyl groups to viral nucleic acids may have prevented the virus from being detected using standard assays. Azacytidine strips off those methyl groups and, Mikovits argues, can boost viral gene expression."
-----------------------
In immunology, 'activation" means something very specific - essentially, turning on the immune functions of the cells.
In Figure 2A, they describe how they activated the cells (this seems important enough to describe):
"PBMCs were activated with phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2..."
In Figure 2C, they say:
"Lysates of activated PBMCs from healthy donors (lanes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7) or from CFS patients (lanes 3 and 6) "
Activated PBMCs.
Nothing about 5AZA.
When JM implies that describing the cells as 'activated' covers the 5AZA treatment - she is not being truthful.
Remember, Ruscetti says that the Ottowa labels were correct, and from Ottowa we know that only the patient samples were treated with 5AZA.All the samples were activated. Activation does not mean 5AZA.
------------------------
JM argues that mentioning the 5AZA treatment was not necessary for publication.
She also says that treatment with 5AZA boosts virus production.
So, by her own words, they boosted virus production in patient samples, did not do so in controls. They saw virus in patient but not controls - they showed us this, in the WB. They used this difference to claim that patients have virus, but controls do not.
But they didn't feel it was necessary to mention that they had boosted virus production in patient samples but not controls?
It's a ludicrous claim.
But they didn't feel it was necessary to mention that they had boosted virus production in patient samples but not controls?
Yes, weird it hasn't been clarified. You'd think Mikovits/Ruscetti would have been keen to spell out that all samples (patients and controls) were treated with 5-aza if that was really the case, and that the Ottawa slide was wrongly labelled in that resepct. The fact this wasn't spelled out by them makes me very suspicious, but I agree Science and Nature should have explicitly clarified this (not least because it's the main story).(@Lee "But they didn't feel it was necessary to mention that they had boosted virus production in patient samples but not controls?")
Has it been clearly stated that this is what happened anywhere yet?
From the look of the slides, it does seem that this is the case... but surely this is the key point? Why didn't the Science or Nature articles confirm it one way or the other with Mikovits/Ruscetti? If it is the case, then the claim that it was not worth mentioning in the Science paper does seem bizarre.
[...]If I were a researcher, I'd be pissed that they left this vital detail out of the original Science article. There is more to it then that as well where Patient sample 2905 in lane 3 and patient sample 1674 in lane 6 are treated with 5-azacytidine in the original experiment. This is not disclosed in the Science paper.
Just to forewarn the patient community, things are going to get really ugly in the near distant future. But remember this point, there are still many dedicated scientific researchers conducting scientific experiments to find the cause and cure for this illness. The media might have a field day but remember this. NEVER, EVER LOSE HOPE!
Eco
I understand your question and your frustration but at this time I feel that it serves no purpose to reveal anymore additional information. If you want to get some related background information you can always Google Miller Ecoclimber.
There is going to be further information coming out in the way of explanation on the slides and labeling and how it effects the claims made in the Science paper today. There will be further official investigations which will result in revealing information on whether any criminal or civil charges will be forthcoming. The future of ME/CFS research at the WPI is still up in the air. Normally, NIH grants stay with the institution. There will be a legal battles, lawsuits filed concerning patents and intellectual property...claims and counterclaims being made. There is also the issue on accountability of funds collected from various groups for various projects and whether those funds were used properly. There will be issues concerning the testing protocol or the test kits that patients paid for. The legality of promising that these tests could detect XMRV within the blood has been refuted by the BWG group. Science is still considering on whether to retract the Lombardi et al. paper and the ramification from that decision if it is retracted will be severe in regards to future research and funding. So in answer to your questions, yes, there is still a lot that will be coming out in the days and months ahead unfortunately.
Eco
There is going to be further information coming out in the way of explanation on the slides and labeling and how it effects the claims made in the Science paper today.
There will be further official investigations which will result in revealing information on whether any criminal or civil charges will be forthcoming. The future of ME/CFS research at the WPI is still up in the air.
Normally, NIH grants stay with the institution. There will be a legal battles, lawsuits filed concerning patents and intellectual property...claims and counterclaims being made.
There is also the issue on accountability of funds collected from various groups for various projects and whether those funds were used properly. There will be issues concerning the testing protocol or the test kits that patients paid for.
The legality of promising that these tests could detect XMRV within the blood has been refuted by the BWG group. Science is still considering on whether to retract the Lombardi et al. paper and the ramification from that decision if it is retracted will be severe in regards to future research and funding.
So in answer to your questions, yes, there is still a lot that will be coming out in the days and months ahead unfortunately.
Eco