Article: Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Racaniello on XMRV

Phoenix Rising Team · 2010-07-12

You can view the page at http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?187-Dr-Mikovits-and-Dr-Racaniello-on-XMRV

D
dean

Cort....you should sign this one with your last name. I understand it and so far it seems to make some sence and I am not a virologist.... Good work

S

S
Sasha

Great article, Cort, and hopeful news. Thanks for interviewing Drs Mikovits and Racaniello.

Roll on those two true replication studies!

Cort

Good idea - forgot to do that. Thanks

Cort

She sounds very hopeful about the replications studies as well as some others on the way that have good cohorts. She sounds like we'll have some good news soon.

parvofighter

Thanks Cort

A thoughtful, excellent, balanced article. I learned a lot. The only comment I'd add is vis a vis the Prelude. I believe that XMRV is less and less "up in the air". Racaniello and Mikovits and you presented many cogent arguments that other researchers are still missing the boat in lab and cohort selection methods. Not the least of which are Racaniello's stunning (thank you!) comments:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style>And his comment on the CDC never having demonstrated that their methods could detect a clinical (human) positive XMRV sample (as opposed to a laboratory derived standard XMRV)<link rel="File-List" href="file:///E:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CDANIEL%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice:smarttags" name="PersonName"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style>

In my view the CDC paper should not have been published without a proper positive control, eg patient samples known to contain XMRV. If I had reviewed the CDC paper that<st1ersonname w:st="on">'</st1ersonname>s what I would have asked for.

Wow. Good news too that as per Dr Mikovits:

I know of at least two true replication studies that are being done in very well characterized CFS cohorts.

Thank you Cort.

D

D
Doogle

Cort, Mindy Kitei not Mindy Katei.

Cort

Doogle said:

thanks Parvofighter and thanks Doogle - I changed it.

C

C
CBS

Thanks, Cort! Excellent article.

I haven't always felt comfortable with the back and forth between the WPI and other labs but I do appreciate their frustration with a dearth of actual replication studies. Mikovits is right on in that good replication studies should have come first followed by work to determine what if any meaning should be ascribed to the Science findings once they were confirmed (or dis-confirmed).

I'm very much looking forward to Drs. Bateman and Racaniello on Thursday.

Parvo - good point.

Elisa

Really great work...enjoyed it very much! I look forward to your reporting everyday!

Elisabeth

Esther12

The cohort issue can't be the deciding factor - it has to be down to either contamination with the WPI or inappropriate testing from the negative studies. The zero results are significantly lower than the WPI's results for healthy controls.

It would be nice to hear a real discussion directly between Mikovits and Racaniello, but thanks to Cort for acting as the go-between on this one.

C

C
CBS

I just sent this the CAA:

</pre>

Otis

Cort,

Great interviews and a fantastic article. Dr. Racaniello's independent statement about the lack of a proper patient controls is very telling. (I've been wondering about those peer reviewers...) He was much more generous to the CDC on TWIV right after publication. He's obviously dug in a bit, which I'm glad to see.

I learned a great deal as well.

Great stuff. I say blog this one. Let's get the word out there. The lay press will never get this level of detail but many patients and advocates will.

Otis

Dr. Yes

I'm not sure Racaniello was interpreting Mikovits correctly when he said:

I think Mikovits was referring to biological amplification prior to extraction, not to standard PCR amplification. Perhaps her statement could have been clearer, but if I am correct then I believe Racaniello misunderstood it. I can't find any reference to biological amplification (i.e. activation/ culture) of cells in the CDC study (and there is none in any of the other negative studies). Racaniello seems to be speaking only of routine PCR amplification of extracted DNA.

ETA - Mikovits may also have been referring to amplification by RT-PCR, which was also not done in the CDC study..

C

C
consuegra

This guy Cort Johnson is really great. He is the best. I am always amazed at how quickly and how well he puts together this information that makes things clearer and more comprehensible for the rest of us - and the amazing thing is that he does it every day. It is not easy to assemble this information. Sometimes I wonder how he does it - and even why he does it. I just hope he knows just how many people appreciate his efforts of their behalf. Thanks Cort!

Chris

http://cfspatientadvocate.blogspot.com

LaurelW

Excellent article, Cort. Enjoyable read as well. Just one comment--in the study that the Drs. Light are doing with Dr. Ila Singh, they are culturing the virus. I don't know if they are doing a replication study, as I read somewhere on these forums that Dr. Singh has developed her own methods of detecting XMRV.

O

O
oceanblue

Thanks, Cort. You do a great job of explaining some fairly heavy-duty science as well as cutting through all the emotion that tends to swamp discussions of XMRV and the like.

Cort

LaurelW said:

That's great to hear that Dr. Singh is culturing the virus. None of the studies have done this. This is soooo technical but I assume that the WPI is culturing the virus out of patient samples and then looking at it very closely and that's where the difference is.

There still are alot of questions...the WPI was able to find it without culturing in PCR early on, if I understood this right...my impression was that Dr. Mikovits thinks that the Science patients were really ill and that may differentiate them from the patients in the other studies; XMRV may be there but in a slightly different form that they are not looking for.

Thanks for the nice comments :Retro smile:

Cort

Esther12 said:

I agree that the cohort can't be the deciding factor - but it could contribute and when you throw these other factors they should drive the results down. My guess is yours, though, it's methodological errors on someones part that are chiefly responsible for the discrepancies. I think Dr. Racaniello is overestimating how different that initial cohort was. Dr. Mikovits thinks most people who fit the CCC definition will test positive.

L

L
Lynn

Ditto on the great article. It's good to hear that Dr. Racaniello has closely looked at the CDC paper and that he understands the cohort issue. I wonder if he gets the politics as well?

Great job!

Lynn

Article: Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Racaniello on XMRV

Comments