New Virology podcast on XMRV

[Esther12]

http://www.virology.ws/

They've got Stephen Goff on too. Just listening to it now, but I've always been keen on virology's coverage. Sounds like they think XMRV is pretty over, but are still leaving the door a crack over.... that's only from the intro though.

edit: Goff sounds nervous in a slightly endearing way.

 

[Esther12]

Actually... they think the door's pretty shut. They seem to think there are still some questions with PC, as XMRV seems to replicate well there... but if all the XMRV sequences found are the result of contamination, I'm not sure why they'd think any other evidence of association with PC was the result of anything else?

It will be interesting to hear what Silverman has to say at this conference.

 

[eric_s]

I don't think i will listen to these programmes anymore. If there's a blinded study finding it, with negative IAP test and negative mouse mtDNA test, i don't see how you can call "contamination". I agree they need to find out everything, but this is hard to understand.

 

[LJS]

I think this episode was very good discussion. It was definitely at a higher technical level of discussion then what we are used to hearing so it may be hard to follow, I certainly had trouble at times. I think it is clear from this discussion that what the WPI, NCI, etc have found so far all track back to the lab 22Rv1 and VP62 strain; what the WPI is finding is the lab contaminate. You can see this clearly from the sequences the WPI published themselves. It is pretty clear to everyone other then the WPI that the WPI is finding a lab contaminate, they said there is more variation in the 22Rv1 lab strain then in the WPI patient samples which is pretty convincing data.

 

[ukxmrv]

LJS, the only way that the Twiv team can stick to their beliefs is if they ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Gkikias Magiorkinis from Oxford had something to argue against their point of view on virus diversity in The Lancet.

Interestingly, Professor Racanello is only inviting people to speak who will say what he wants to hear. That's not a scientific debate - that's censorship.

 

[Daffodil]

i am not sure i understand..wasnt there just a paper out about MLV-like gag sequences found in CFS patients? by Li or something...? and its all over the net that beiger's study will be positive too..so why are they continuing to say XMRV is over? perhaps they mean XMRV in particular is over but not MLV-related viruses?