Cheney on transmission

[dannybex]

As soon as the WPI found XMRV I realized that it had to be transmitted more easily than HIV. Otherwise you wouldn't get the outbreaks they've had. I think Cheney is probably right on this one. I feeling is that it is probably transmitted in the same way as Glandular fever (Mono), so that would include saliva. I think that nasal secretions would be likely as well.

I have no idea of course, but if it were so easily transmitted, then I would think many millions more would be sick.

???

d.

p.s. Think I may have just found Cheney's explanation: "Over time, the infections of various organs tended to be cleared by either immune mechanisms but especially by restriction enzyme systems present in almost all human cells that hypermutate the virus so it cannot persist as a competent infectious agent. Indeed, mutated viral strains are almost always found in CFS cases by both Judy Mikovits at WPI and Frank Ruscetti at NCI. Sometimes this makes the virus incompetent as an infectious agent and sometimes has no effect on infectiousness."

 

[anciendaze]

Both of these studies by Grufferman are interesting. Unfortunately, they don't seem to talk about whether onset was sudden or gradual, and don't do a great job defining the symptoms involved. Odd too that he found similar NK cell actiivity in both the symptomatic and the asymptomatic. Unfortunately, as he points out, there was no control group outside the orchestra. If the entire orchestra had in fact been infected by a pathogen, then the analysis of contacts between C and NC versus C and C would be entirely irrelevant, because in fact they had all been infected, but only some were symptomatic. If it was only the symptomatic that were infected, we still don't really know what they were infected with: a common flu bug that triggered CFS, or THE pathogen underlying CFS.

So, it's not clear to me this study really shed much light on how "CFS" is transmitted, let alone XMRV.

Disclaimer: I'm so NOT a scientist! On logical puzzles, I do allright, but when it comes to chemistry and biology, well, that's a different matter. So, fire away, if you have a better interpretation of either of these Gruffereman studies.

He tried to set up matched controls. His first attempt failed when asymptomatic members of the orchestra became symptomatic. His second attempt, to use the Pittsburgh Symphony as a control group, turned up a musician there who came from the Carolina Symphony.

You don't read about a pattern of onset because he did not see one. Some people experienced a fairly dramatic onset, others couldn't say where their problems began. This is one reason I believe infection and onset of symptoms are two different things, with most symptoms caused by coinfections. A possible silent phase of infection would go some distance toward explaining the confusion.

Another take-home message is that the infection is slow. This matches current information on replication of HMRV.

 

[free at last]

That's how it was in my case, too. Rest and especially sleep is the only thing i know that helps. But sleep only started to help me once i had gotten better to some degree.

Interesting Eric, for me it seemed the other way around, Sleep seemed to kick start a very slow progression, though as mentioned the illness at this point had changed somewhat already. no temperatures less of a raging virus like attack. but the symptoms still similair, milder. BUT MUCH MORE OFTEN.

Not sure if thats what you mean, but if so, then our tales are simliar. Certainly the benefit of sleep as opposed to fighting a illness with poor sleep. really was night and day for both of us it seems. But im convinced the other things ive mentioned were very important too.

Though proper sleep was the single most thing that i think stopped a very slow and dangerouse decline. If i hadnt have achieved it. not sure if i could have made it. i think i would have stayed permanently ill. untill such time that my body or mind gave out.

Im amazed Eric because it was a side effect of a evil of evils, anti depressent. Zopiclone certainly didnt work. and i belive possibly serotin depletion and restored by the anti depressent somehow mixed with my sleep body chemicals to produce this very drowsy sleep effect to happen,

i know this. because if i took the drug many hours too early, the effect didnt work, but if i took the drug just before sleeping so its effect, started while asleep, then somehow it seemed to mix with my bodys sleep chemical, so when i woke, for the life of me i could not wake myself up. i was very very heavy and totally drowsy, under that situation i fell asleep again for another 2 or 3 hours, getting 6 or 7 hours the very first time i tried it, which for me was a damm miracle, and possibly a life saver.

I strarted a thread about this ages ago, and some one mentioned that amitriptylene didnt agree with them because it left them feeling groggy in the morning, and for most of the day. but that was true for me also, but did i care, hell no, because up untill this point i was on about 4 hours sleep every 48 hours.

And that is a important observation that i never ever see discussed around here. unless im one in a million ( i dont accept that ) or was just depressed ( sorry i dont accept that either ) then clearly important information seems to be very selective around here.

And im sorry to say this, but something just isnt adding up about that. be it a stigma or something else i dont know.

But take it or leave it, it led to partiall recovery. Dont make a ripple around here though it seems ?

sorry to let transmission slide for a bit, those that are not interested in mine and Erics recovery, can just politely skip passed our discussion. Hopefully someone on here might just responed the way i did. and for them, i hope im humoured here.

 

[sickness]

I have no idea of course, but if it were so easily transmitted, then I would think many millions more would be sick.

???

d.

We do know already that many more are infected (from the 4% positives in healthy controls). Not everyone who is infected gets sick, it happens with HIV too. Some people who are infected with HIV never go on to develop AIDS.
Also, there is probably a genetic predisposition and triggering factors as well. Nothing with this disease is ever easy, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is the same for working out the transmission. I also won't be at all surprised if I turn out to be completely wrong, lol.
That is a very interesting point about the virus mutating until sometimes it is no longer as infectious. I must have missed that when I read Cheney's stuff before, thanks alot d, for pointing it out!
Take care, ness

 

[anciendaze]

I have no idea of course, but if it were so easily transmitted, then I would think many millions more would be sick.

???

d.

We do know already that many more are infected (from the 4% positives in healthy controls). Not everyone who is infected gets sick, it happens with HIV too. Some people who are infected with HIV never go on to develop AIDS...

First of all, I want to say that in the Lo/Alter study that 4% is up to 6.8%. As test assays improve, it is typical for percentages to rise. We are still on that learning curve.

Finding subpopulations with high infection rates also raises estimates. If you know all likely groups with high rates, you can sample effectively with small numbers of people. If you do not, you are likely to undercount because some groups carry much more weight than others. We are still in early stages of this aspect.

Most infectious diseases do not cause illness in anything like 100% of the exposed population. Polio is an example. The virus was endemic in urban populations; virtually everyone was exposed. The vast majority never had any reported illness. Others had a flu-like illness which resolved quickly. Of those showing symptoms, 90% recovered completely. Only a percentage developed the paralytic illness. A percentage of these died.

The scale of the tragedy of polio came about because the exposed population was huge and substantial numbers sustained life-long damage. Even with the ratios alluded to above, the 1953 epidemic alone killed thousands in the U.S. and left thousands more paralyzed.

With current data on XMRV, it looks like the infected population will turn out to be between 10 and 20 million in the U.S. Most of these are completely unaware they are infected. Stopping the spread of a retrovirus present in such numbers of people is a health problem never faced before. In the absence of an easy solution, official denial is predictable.

 

[Jemal]

Epstein Barr, the virus that can cause mono, can be found in 90% of adults.
XMRV research is still in its infancy (so the percentages of XMRV could be much higher), but at the moment it looks like there are certain factors limiting the spread of the virus.
It could be that it's not contagious most of the time or maybe it can't easily infect people through saliva... maybe it needs a certain trigger or co-factor to succesfully infect people. It could even be that the immune system of most people is able to resist infection and totally clear the virus. There are many more possibilities.

 

[George]

I think you have hit on a really important point AD. (as usual, grins) Stopping the spread is impossible. Health Officials thought they could contain and possibly stop the spread of HIV but realized that they couldn't without mandatory testing everywhere in the world. Same with the XMRV bug. Stopping it is not possible. So what happens is that it continues to spread and very much like Polio it becomes a numbers game. If only .02% of the population is ill then Health Officials can ignore the problem because it sits within "acceptable limits". Those "limits" are about costs, costs to the economy, cost to the perception of the population, costs to the political parties involved, ya know the kind of stuff. (grins)

But any Bug has a tipping point where something has to be done. When the number of people who are ill becomes a burden on the Health care system, on the economy, on the social safety nets of developed countries, on the perception of well being in the general population and it's no longer politically expedient for the political parties to not become involved. Much like you point out with Polio in the '50's. The horror of images of wards of iron lungs filled with children who would die there is a point where the general population, when the masses, said no more and millions were pored into the science of eradication!

But ME/CFS wasn't there yet. We had not hit the tipping point with our measly .028%. I estimate that we could have gone another 10 years before it became a truly notable crisis. We got lucky on several fronts;

• First because the bug in question happened to be well written up in Prostate Cancer before it became associated with ME/CFS,
• Second because it's a retro-virus only the third know which makes it a potential career maker,
• Third because it's association with cancer makes it a very popular and eventually well funded bug, the masses are frightened of cancer and its become de rigor to be part of the many ribbon campaigns.

So we got lucky that our patient population has this bug consistently and in large numbers. Since, the spread can't be stopped then there will be a really big push by Health Officials to mitigate it's impact on the overall economy. That will mean a big push for therapeutics as well as a vaccine. The fact that vaccine development is being pushed before we even "know" if this bug is pathogenic tells me just how worried Health Officials are about XMRV.

I'm just not sure about the transmission part of things. If Cheney's right then it can be transmitted sexually, vertically, blood borne, and possibly via nasal and lung secretions but only during periods when the virus is infectious, much like FLev or FIV. A scenario like that would fit the time lines proposed and the numbers involved really well but, would be kind of unusual. I guess we will have to wait for the science to know one way or the other.

As for the virus clearing the organs and reaching a non infectious state I'm a bit confused on that, does he mean the organs but not what ever tissue reservoir that it hides in? I know that FLV doesn't clear from cats although some cats do well even with the virus. I don't know any examples of a "retrovirus" clearing from either an animal or human model. Virus' yes but not any retrovirus'. Anybody know more on that?

 

[Jemal]

Also George, IF XMRV is linked to cases of autism it's going to put a lot more pressure on the government and health agencies. I think the WPI has realised this as well. They can't ignore sick children.

 

[George]

Also George, IF XMRV is linked to cases of autism it's going to put a lot more pressure on the government and health agencies. I think the WPI has realised this as well. They can't ignore sick children.

Good one Jemal. Just like the images of thousands of children in the iron lungs with Paralitic Polio if Autistic kids turn out to have the virus then you're right the health officails will have to throw everything they have at this and fast!