5th Invest in ME/CFS Conference - Programme May 24 2010
- Thread starter leelaplay
- Start date
G
any viral infection will activate a herv. any retrovirus will activate a herv
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
G
any viral infection will activate a herv. any retrovirus will activate a herv
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
- Messages
- 510
- Likes
- 13
A sort of big thing from the conference was Brigette Huber. She found no XMRV in 228 samples.
112 samples from Levine New York
105 from Taylor
11 from HHV6 Foundation
All negative. No idea about controls, I don't think she mentioned them. Again she mentioned contamination. However, I don't think she used the same method as Science paper. Mikovits again said they checked contamination, and there was none. This is still to be published I think
So this must be the negative paper. Also Klimas is still positive about XMRV, and so am I.
112 samples from Levine New York
105 from Taylor
11 from HHV6 Foundation
All negative. No idea about controls, I don't think she mentioned them. Again she mentioned contamination. However, I don't think she used the same method as Science paper. Mikovits again said they checked contamination, and there was none. This is still to be published I think
So this must be the negative paper. Also Klimas is still positive about XMRV, and so am I.
Anyway, I just don't buy it that in 228 samples of anyone, even if they were all healthy people, there is not one sample which is positive for XMRV. I mean, we now have, besides from the three studies of prostate cancer cells (which found XMRV in prostate cancer, and in some of them they also checked healthy people and found it to some degree), 2 studies that found XMRV in the blood of healthy people (the WPI study and the unpublished Japanese study which found XMRV in 1.7% of the healthy cohorts they checked) and another study that found it in respiratory secretions - also, in healthy people too. Was there contamination in all of these 3 studies? Was there contamination in all of the studies that found XMRV in prostate cells (I mean, the people who wrote the negative studies about XMRV in prostate cancer could say the same as the people who wrote negative studies about XMRV in ME/CFS... So we're up to 6 contaminated studies in 5 different places, not to mention things like confirmation by other labs that the WPI got before their study was published).
Do you think its likely that Dr. Huber's tests could detect XMRV if it was there (at least most of the times that it is there)? Because to me it seems that the answer is simple: No.
yes, she was very excited about that!!!
could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.
basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.
Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow)
could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.
basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.
Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow
)
R
is the BMJ lady there?
ETA
Those must be Levine's negative samples.
ETA
Those must be Levine's negative samples.
K
Levine sent her at least one sample from a patient that tested positive by VIPdx
R
Well, at least she had a positive control!
- Messages
- 74
- Likes
- 14
Thanks to everyone who went or had a friend who went and is filling us in. Very interesting stuff!
- Messages
- 510
- Likes
- 13
Do you know which journal(s) rejected that study? Is there a journal which is known to be about to publish it?
Anyway, I'm getting really mad at this kind of scientists. I mean, even if their intentions are good - this kind of sceinece is very bad. Not because they didn't find XMRV, but because they didn't look for it as they should have. XMRV is a new kind of virus and the best method to find it was not yet determined. Therefore, a scientist MUST, when he comes to make a study that is trying to prove or disprove the claim that XMRV is associated with a disease, first use the method that was able to find it in the largest number (or at least in a large number) in previous studies, and use it correctly and in the exact same method that the previous positive study found it. Unless he does that, his study is useless because we don't know if his method of testing worth anything. I mean, if I look for flour with my eyes I'll see it - but it doesn't mean that if I look for a bacteria with my eyes and don't see it it's not there. Perhaps Huber's method is a method that is able to detect other viruses anytime that they are there - but it wasn't proven to be able to find XMRV even most of the times that it's there. That is why accurate replication studies are so so improtant.
I'm arfraid that this crappy kind of science might harm us. I really hope it doesn't.
Anyway, I'm getting really mad at this kind of scientists. I mean, even if their intentions are good - this kind of sceinece is very bad. Not because they didn't find XMRV, but because they didn't look for it as they should have. XMRV is a new kind of virus and the best method to find it was not yet determined. Therefore, a scientist MUST, when he comes to make a study that is trying to prove or disprove the claim that XMRV is associated with a disease, first use the method that was able to find it in the largest number (or at least in a large number) in previous studies, and use it correctly and in the exact same method that the previous positive study found it. Unless he does that, his study is useless because we don't know if his method of testing worth anything. I mean, if I look for flour with my eyes I'll see it - but it doesn't mean that if I look for a bacteria with my eyes and don't see it it's not there. Perhaps Huber's method is a method that is able to detect other viruses anytime that they are there - but it wasn't proven to be able to find XMRV even most of the times that it's there. That is why accurate replication studies are so so improtant.
I'm arfraid that this crappy kind of science might harm us. I really hope it doesn't.
Omerbasket, there is more: after qPCR was all negative, they decided to look for it "the way the original study did" - but only as far as PCR went.
then something happened she said - I missed that part, hope someone can fill in !!! - but they had 100% positive on that repeat test (with another type PCR, I missed which one) and they then decided they had got contaminated somehow.... sorry no details here, she sort of rushed through that part
then something happened she said - I missed that part, hope someone can fill in !!! - but they had 100% positive on that repeat test (with another type PCR, I missed which one) and they then decided they had got contaminated somehow.... sorry no details here, she sort of rushed through that part
yes, she was very excited about that!!!
could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.
basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.
Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow)
could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.
basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.
Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow
)
http://www.healing-arts.org/children/autism-overview.htm#Dipeptidyl Peptidase Deficiency
- Messages
- 510
- Likes
- 13
Did she say if after they got a 100% positives they tried to test again these positives with the qPCR test - to see if that qPCR would find even half of these samples to be positives (if it could be done in some way, because I don't know if it's possible to test it agian after the first 2 tests)? Because if she would have done it and find 100% positives, than it probably means that the second test was somehow contaminated - But it she would have done it and again found nothing - That would mean the qPCR worth nothing at all here. And if she would only find, let's say, 30% to be positive, that means something here is odd...
I wonder how did they decide they have got contamination (I mean, they probably did something wrong there, because it would be very very very surprising if they had all 228 samples positive by PCR... The WPI found only 67% of the 98% positives by PCR), but yet again - after the supposed contamination, she said to herslef "What the hell, I'll just try to publish the first kind of test (qPCR) even though I myself wanted to test it by a way from the original study"?
She may be a fine scientist and perhaps even more than that, but this study seems to me, again, crappy.
I wonder how did they decide they have got contamination (I mean, they probably did something wrong there, because it would be very very very surprising if they had all 228 samples positive by PCR... The WPI found only 67% of the 98% positives by PCR), but yet again - after the supposed contamination, she said to herslef "What the hell, I'll just try to publish the first kind of test (qPCR) even though I myself wanted to test it by a way from the original study"?
She may be a fine scientist and perhaps even more than that, but this study seems to me, again, crappy.