Viral Titers--A statement by Robert Naviaux

[msf]

I think the omf, ron davis, and robert naviaux are well aware of that. naviaux's paper on cfs discusses that it's a "homogenous response to heterogeneous triggers"

It's odd then that researchers invariably talk of viruses rather than pathogens.

 

[Tammy]

It's odd then that researchers invariably talk of viruses rather than pathogens.

A virus is a pathogen. Maybe I misunderstood your sentence?

 

[frozenborderline]

It's odd then that researchers invariably talk of viruses rather than pathogens.

naviaux has talked about both. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

 

[duncan]

naviaux has talked about both. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Viruses are a subset of pathogens. There are other pathogens, e.g. bacteria and parasites, that are not viruses.

To me it seems almost sloppy not to simply say pathogens, perhaps even potentially prejudicial. Kind of like saying chronic fatigue vs. ME/CFS. But in his Q&A Naviaux does note bacteria. However, when he talks about PCR testing to generate insight into the presence of the latter, or CSF testing, or whatever, well, that's not a convincing direction imo when it comes to some pathogens.

 

[frozenborderline]

Viruses are a subset of pathogens. There are other pathogens, e.g. bacteria and parasites, that are not viruses.

To me it seems almost sloppy not to simply say pathogens, perhaps even potentially prejudicial. Kind of like saying chronic fatigue vs. ME/CFS. But in his Q&A Naviaux does note bacteria. However, when he talks about PCR testing to generate insight into the presence of the latter, or CSF testing, or whatever, well, that's not a convincing direction imo when it comes to some pathogens.

Naviaux's job isn't to be a patient advocate or a Lyme advocate or anything. his job is to do the scientific research and do it well, and to some extent (since there's so little research and this is important to the brainstorming process) to speculate and draw conclusions from that research in a public manner. He is doing that excellently. Everyone has faults.

I'm fairly sure they have talked about testing for other pathogens, and I have heard that they will work with some lyme-specific people.

I just feel that this is nit-picking. They are doing the best and the most work that they can do. I'm sure that he has discussed "pathogens" or bacteria, not just viruses, but this post is about viruses. I don't really understand the problem

 

[duncan]

I just feel that this is nit-picking. They are doing the best and the most work that they can do. I'm sure that he has discussed "pathogens" or bacteria, not just viruses, but this post is about viruses. I don't really understand the problem

Fair enough. But I would not be so quick to discount issues associated with relying on the strengths of PCR. If as a researcher you are attesting a cohort is pathogen-free on the back of conventional blood tests and even CSF exams, and use PCR as further evidence supporting the voracity of the pathogen-free claim, I don't think that works for any number of pathogens. You can bring anyone else they are working with, like Mark Davis, and I would still challenge the assertion.

I am highly appreciative of their efforts. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say.

 

[frozenborderline]

Fair enough. But I would not be so quick to discount the issue with relying on the strengths of PCR. If as a researcher you are attesting a cohort is pathogen free on the back of conventional blood tests and CSF exams, and use PCR as further evidence supporting the voracity of the pathogen-free claim, I don't think that works for any number of pathogens. You can bring anyone else they are working with, like Mark Davis, and I would still challenge the assertion.

I am highly appreciative of their efforts. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say.

I'm curious about the value of pcr because i'm trying to test multiple pathogens. curious about any evidence that shows it doesn't have value, so please feel free to post some

 

[duncan]

I'm curious about the value of pcr because i'm trying to test multiple pathogens. curious about any evidence that shows it doesn't have value, so please feel free to post some

It depends on the pathogen. For Lyme, using PCR is a crap shoot with the odds not in your favor. I think you may find that holds true with many pathogens that are tissue-tropic, and cannot be found easily in blood.

 

[frozenborderline]

It depends on the pathogen. For Lyme, using PCR is a crap shoot with the odds not in your favor. I think you may find that holds true with many pathogens that are tissue-tropic, and cannot be found easily in blood.

i thought the PCR was a more sought-after method in lyme b/c of the unreliability of western blot. I've only had western blot/elisa because insurance doesn't cover pcr, but if i ever get money i will do various borrelia pcr tests

 

[ljimbo423]

Some background info on Robert Naviaux for anyone interested.

Robert K. Naviaux, MD, PhD (Biosketch)
Dr. Naviaux is a Professor of Genetics, in the Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Pathology. He directs a core laboratory for metabolomics at UCSD. He is the co-founder and a former president of the Mitochondrial Medicine Society (MMS), and a founding associate editor of the journal Mitochondrion.

He is an internationally known expert in human genetics, inborn errors of metabolism, metabolomics, and mitochondrial medicine. He is the discoverer of the cause of Alpers syndrome---the oldest Mendelian form of mitochondrial disease---and the developer of the first DNA test to diagnose it.

Dr. Naviaux's lab has developed a number of advanced technologies like biocavity laser spectroscopy and mtDNA mutation detection by mass spectrometry.

He is a Salk-trained virologist, and molecular and cell biologist, the inventor of the popular pCL retroviral gene transfer vectors, and was trained at NIH in tumor immunology and natural killer cell biology.

He studied biochemistry at Georg-August University in Göttingen, Germany. He has been the PI for over 20 IRB-approved human subjects protocols at UCSD since 1995. In 2010, Dr. Naviaux was a member of the Cal-Echoes oceanographic expedition to collect environmental and ecosystem data along the California coast.

His work in ecosystem dynamics has guided new work in microbiome ecology and metabolism in autism spectrum disorders.

In 2011, he received a Trailblazer Award from Autism Speaks. His 2013 paper reporting preclinical studies on the role of purinergic signaling and the cell danger response in autism was ranked the #1 most-viewed report of 2013 on the Simons Foundation autism web site.

He is currently the director of the first FDA-approved clinical trial to study the safety and test the effects of suramin on behavior and language in children with autism.

http://naviauxlab.ucsd.edu/team/

 

[msf]

naviaux has talked about both. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Do you understand that 'invariably' may have been a generalisation? If you want to do specifics, why did he talk about viruses rather than pathogens here?

 

[Hip]

Regarding Prof Robert Naviaux's statement quoted earlier

Third, latent and reactivated viral and bacterial infections can occur, but in the case of ME/CFS that has lasted for more than 6 months, this may be the exception rather than the rule.

Some doctors and scientists have not done a good job at educating patients and other scientists about the difference between serological evidence of infection in the form of antibodies like IgM and IgG, and physical evidence of viral replication like PCR amplification of viral RNA or DNA, or bacterial DNA.

There are more classifications of viral infection other than the latent and reactivated viral infections Prof Naviaux mentions above: there are also non-cytolytic infections, and abortive infections. These two types of infection exist purely inside human cells, and do not produce any new viral particles.

Numerous studies have found non-cytolytic enterovirus in the muscles, guts and brains of ME/CFS patients. So clearly long term chronic viral infections are found in ME/CFS.

In the case of these chronic enterovirus infections, you don't find much virus in the blood; it's mostly located in the tissues. So this is why blood PCR for enterovirus is often negative in ME/CFS.

However, if you look for enterovirus in the muscle or intestinal tissues, that's where you will find the infection.

And likely because of these enterovirus infections in the tissues of ME/CFS patients, that's why you find high IgG titers in ME/CFS.

I'm curious about the value of pcr because i'm trying to test multiple pathogens. curious about any evidence that shows it doesn't have value, so please feel free to post some

I would not say blood PCR has no value in ME/CFS, but Dr Chia says that in the case of enterovirus, even under the best conditions blood PCR will only detect chronic enterovirus around 30% of the time (see the paragraph on PCR at the Enterovirus Foundation).

So if you were using blood PCR to detect enterovirus infections, you would miss these infections in 2 out of every 3 enterovirus ME/CFS patients you tested, and these patients who then potentially miss out on what is sometimes an effective treatment for enterovirus ME/CFS: oxymatrine.

In the case of enterovirus, we know that non-cytolytic enteroviruses are present as chronic intracellular infections in the muscles, gut and brains of ME/CFS patients. But you don't find much enterovirus in the blood in such chronic infections, so that's why blood PCR often comes out negative.



I am not aware of any similar statistics for the reliability of blood PCR for detecting chronic herpesvirus infections in ME/CFS, but I know that Dr Lerner and Dr Montoya used antibody testing in their research studies and clinical work, not PCR. And Dr Dantini says that PCR is not much use in ME/CFS.

However, Dr Peterson uses antibody, PCR, antigenemia and culture tests for herpesviruses (I am guessing he prefers a belts and braces approach to testing). See page 10 of this pdf. But he only uses antibody testing for enterovirus.

 

[frozenborderline]

Do you understand that 'invariably' may have been a generalisation? If you want to do specifics, why did he talk about viruses rather than pathogens here?

He's addressing viruses because it's a common issue in CFS, at least as a trigger. He can't provide a condensation of every possible cfs trigger every time he discusses a specific issue. That makes no sense

 

[RustyJ]

Naviaux doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his metabolic-theory-of-everything or his anti-pathogen stance. It is a potentially limiting view, especially if Davis has climbed aboard.

 

[JES]

Naviaux doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his metabolic-theory-of-everything or his anti-pathogen stance. It is a potentially limiting view, especially if Davis has climbed aboard.

Agree, Naviaux' theory is very unorthodox and it will probably take years before it's tested and replicated by someone else properly. I think Naviaux is so deep into his own theory that he hasn't seriously considered the effect of viruses. Ron Davis is probably more aware, but I don't think he has done enough research into how these chronic viral infections work to be able to exclude them. Davis stated that he found less viruses in CFS patients than controls, which is much in contrast with the discoveries of Lerner and Chia. They cannot all be correct. I hope that collaboration with Davis, Montoya and Chia would help to get this matter cleared once and for all.

 

[Wonkmonk]

Has anyone ever looked into the question why some patients never get sick (fever, sore throat, cough, common cold, flu etc.) and others permanently feel they have some kind of infection (fever, tender/enlarged lymph nodes, sore throat etc.)?

If I were a researcher, the first thing I'd do is to study these groups separately.

 

[nanonug]

I think Naviaux is so deep into his own theory that he hasn't seriously considered the effect of viruses.

That is a very interesting comment to make considering Naviaux is, among other things, a virologist.

 

[jpcv]

Naviaux doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his metabolic-theory-of-everything or his anti-pathogen stance. It is a potentially limiting view, especially if Davis has climbed aboard.

Yes, he has.
https://omf.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Naviaux-PNAS-CFS-Metabolomics-2016.pdf

Also, Chris Armstrong´s data shows similar results

 

[Hip]

With the pathogen theory of ME/CFS, the thing to consider is whether the presence of certain pathogens in the body is a necessary or a sufficient condition to cause ME/CFS.

If we look at the enterovirus research on stomach and muscle tissues biopsies, ME/CFS patients were much more frequently found to have enterovirus infection in these tissues; but these enterovirus tissue infections were also found in healthy controls.

So that suggest that enterovirus infection in the muscles or stomach is not a sufficient condition for developing ME/CFS (ie, on its own, enterovirus infection in these tissues is not sufficient to cause ME/CFS, which we know from the fact that healthy controls also have the same infections).

And that implies that some other factor (some immunological factor perhaps) must also be present before these chronic enterovirus infections can cause ME/CFS. Possibly that factor may be what Naviaux's line of research will find.



That being said, if you look at the enterovirus research on brain biopsies in ME/CFS, although there have only been 3 such brain biopsies, all 3 found enterovirus infection in the brain, whereas none of the 8 controls had this infection. So there is a 1 to 1 correspondence with who has chronic enterovirus brain infection, and who has ME/CFS.

Of course with only 3 brain biopsies, there is not yet much statistical significance to this finding; but so far at least, the brain biopsy research does suggest that cerebral enterovirus infection is on its own a sufficient condition to cause ME/CFS.

 

[RustyJ]

Yes, he has.
https://omf.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Naviaux-PNAS-CFS-Metabolomics-2016.pdf

Also, Chris Armstrong´s data shows similar results

Many illnesses display metabolomic changes, but these changes are not viewed as causal.