Choline on the Brain? A Guide to Choline in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Discuss the article on the Forums.


Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Mindy Kitei, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    I'm not sure if this is correct, Rusty.

    From p10 Supporting online material:

    Sequencing of the two clinical plasma samples that tested positive in the WPI assays
    revealed one sequence that varied from the published VP62 XMRV sequence (GenBank
    accession #DQ399707) by two bases
    and from the 22Rv1 sequence (GenBank accession
    #FN692043) by three bases, while the other was identical to VP62 and varied from the
    22Rv1 sequence by one base.

    So, by my reading:

    -- the first sequence differed from VP62 by two bases and from the 22Rv1 sequence by three bases
    -- the second sequence was identical to VP62 and differed from the 22Rv1 sequence by one base

    It seems to me that the WPI were picking up VP62 afterall.
  2. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    I agree. It also seems to me like that (altough, there is one sequence that Lo/Alter found that had just one nucleotide difference than VP62, out of 277 nucleotides, "MLV-related virus CFS isolate MLV001-2010 gag polyprotein (gag) gene"). I admit I haven't read the supporting online material, but from that paragraph, and from the study itself (that I have read), it seems to me that the study strongly suggest that the WPI were wrong from the beginning. Having said that, I want to say two things:
    1) I am not a scientist. Therefore, it is very hard for me to be sure about those things - and I am not sure. Moreover, I think it should be very hard for scientists to be sure about those things, even though many of them don't think that it should be so hard. Perhaps a very good example for that should be what I read over the internet this morning: As opposed to what Einstein said (that nothing can exceed the speed of light) - a thing that had become a pillar of science - the scientists in the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva had found a subatomic particle (neutrinos) the in their experiments exceeded the speed of light. They have run these tests, they say, many times, and confirmed it again and again. Yet - wisely, in my opinion - they say that it's not over until it's over, and that this should be treated with extreme carefullness. One of the conclusions should be that the HMRV thing should not be treated as if it's over, until it's over. Scientists can be very surprised sometimes when the truth is revealed. Altough, as I've said, I think that the BWG study gives us a strong indication that the HMRV findings were wrong to begin with (although I shell stress again that I haven't read the supporting oline material and that I am not a scientist, so one must acknowledge these limtations of mine).
    2) I think that before anyone even begin to think about leaving the HMRV issue totally behind us, we must wait for the Lipking study results to b e published. It is a much bigger study, and the participating laboratories there would be able to learn from their mistakes in the current study, and therefore there is a possibility that after it is published the HMRV issue would get back into the center of the stage. So, it's important to be patient before coming out with any statetments.

    On another issue:
    Perhaps someone can explain it to me, because I don't understand that conclusion.
    Bob likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page