Article: From the PCR Side: the Cooperative Diagnostics XMRV Interview with Dr. Brent Satterfield

Article: From the PCR Side: the Cooperative Diagnostics XMRV Interview with Dr. Brent

You can view the page at http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?376-From-the-PCR-Side-the-Cooperative-Diagnostics-XMRV-CFS-ME-CFS-Interview-with-Dr.-Brent-Satterfield

 

Thanks Cort.

At this point, we're just waiting for news from the BWG.

It does seem strange that the WPI might have stumbled upon an accurate testing method when other's can't... but putting them to the test on blinded samples is the only way to test that out.

I can't believe how confused the phase II results were though.

 

Thanks Cort, very positive and upbeat article, and even if our "favourite" virus is not quite there it may be part of the picture still.

 

insufficient priveldge to access page?

edit - now have access - damn interthingy

 

Cort, did you ask Satterfield if Cooperative Diagnostics refunded people who paid for their defective commercial test?

 

Cooperative Diagnostics are the idiots who wrongly claimed that a pin-prick test could be used to diagnose a retroviral infection. So ridiculous was this claim that even Dr Coffin openly pooh poohed it.

As asleep asked I too would like to know if Cooperative Diagnostics has refunded all those people it duped. If not, does it have any plans to?

 

As asleep asked I too would like to know if Cooperative Diagnostics has refunded all those people it duped. If not, does it have any plans to?

Yeah... I was wondering if we'd get some questions like this. The WPI only brought their test out after the co-op one, and the rush to market was a bad thing. It would have been good to know how many people had been charged, if they were refunded, etc.

 

Cooperative Diagnostics are the idiots who wrongly claimed that a pin-prick test could be used to diagnose a retroviral infection. So ridiculous was this claim that even Dr Coffin openly pooh poohed it.

As asleep asked I too would like to know if Cooperative Diagnostics has refunded all those people it duped. If not, does it have any plans to?

If you look at Dr. Satterfield's response he reports that their test was developed using their technology and based on the results of the Lombardi et al paper.

I don't think there's any reason to refund them simply because their later tests using more blood were still unable to pick up the virus; ie even when they got the test right XMRV wasn't there. If they had started finding XMRV at that point then they would have had an obligation to redo the tests I would think.

I think everybody taking any of the tests realizes or should realize - that none of the tests, VIP Dx's or Coop Diag are 'validated'. I believe all the tests come with disclaimers? I believe there is a validation process that labs can go through that is quite extensive - and nobody has gone through that yet.

 

Sigh....

We knew our test could pick out a single copy of XMRV in 250 ng of PBMC DNA contained in 750 ng of DNA from whole blood; what we didn’t know was if Lombardi et al was correct about XMRV being present in persons with CFS in only 100 to 250 ng of PBMC DNA.

What CoOpDx and Satterfield knew was their test could pick up a single copy of the VP62 clone. They did not calibrate their test against a validated positive sample. Lombardi's tests were set up with a much wider sensitivity, as has been pointed out several times before. Bear in mind that the other two human retroviruses have a variability of >85%, and there is no reason to expect any different from the Human Gamma Retroviruses.

Not to mention all the other things he did and did not do, that meant Satterfield had no chance of finding wild XMRV in his samples, however much he wanted to, even in patients riddled with the retrovirus.

Yawn...

 

Excellent report, Cort; this is the way science should be discussed if the discussion is to be productive. (Wish others would learn this lesson.) We look forward to hearing Judy's viewpoint. Thanks for your effort.

 

Thanks for posting this, Cort! Whatever happens, this has been an enormously educational experience. Who knew science was filled with so much drama!?

I hope he's right in suggesting that even if the XMRV research does not pan out, ME/CFS is on the minds of serious politicians and researchers more than ever before.

 

Cort, I think the arguement given in responce to your question about antibodies, was extremely weak. If i can see that, then im sure anyone else can, so no need for me to explain why.

To be honest, ive read this and lots of other articles on here over the last week, and I've noticed there is a lot of posturing and positioning going on.

Something us patients need to remember is that this is business to these people (most anyway) and that means $s. I bet that Mikovits knows for sure that there is XMRV but she isnt about to go into detail explaining how to run the tests to find it because she quite rightly wants the credit for it, and the WPI want to make money out of it. They are no doubt developing reliable tests for mass processing.

In addition all these 'negative' studies, and interviews like this one, tell us something. Other people think she is on to something too, else they woudlnt spend their respources (read: money) on trying to replicate it. They try to find it - if they can, great they might be able to take some credit and even make some money out of it somehow. If they cant find it, then there is nothing for them to gain, except possibly developing new ways to find it, and what they need for that is time. So they try to discredit their competition.

It will all come out in the wash eventually.

 

To be honest, ive read this and lots of other articles on here over the last week, and I've noticed there is a lot of posturing and positioning going on.

Something us patients need to remember is that this is business to these people (most anyway) and that means $s. I bet that Mikovits knows for sure that there is XMRV but she isnt about to go into detail explaining how to run the tests to find it because she quite rightly wants the credit for it, and the WPI want to make money out of it. They are no doubt developing reliable tests for mass processing.

In addition all these 'negative' studies, and interviews like this one, tell us something. Other people think she is on to something too, else they woudlnt spend their respources (read: money) on trying to replicate it. They try to find it - if they can, great they might be able to take some credit and even make some money out of it somehow. If they cant find it, then there is nothing for them to gain, except possibly developing new ways to find it, and what they need for that is time. So they try to discredit their competition.

It will all come out in the wash eventually.

snow; i'm sure everything you wrote is 100% true....but in the meantime, since 10/09 (well way before that, but hope rose on 10/09) i've been lying in bed with dry heaves, insomnia, overall body pain and a 9 yo son who is feeling terrible that his mother is soo sick. the way the world works really sucks!!!!


thanks for your insightful but sad post.

warmest regards

 

Hi Navid,

It is sad isnt it; the way the world works. Still, at least there is hope that even in the system the world works in, progress is being made, albeit slower than it should be, and slower than we would like.

We just need to all hang in there a while longer...

Best
Snowathlete

 

Currer, thats interesting: About Silvermans article in the American Journal of Urology. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

An article has just been published in the American Journal of Urology April 2011 authored by Silverman and Klein, among others, on XMRV's role in prostate cancer. They seem to think it is still there and not contamination.
"XMRV's effect on the 30 host genes identified in this study suggests a profound effect of the virus on fundamental cellular physiology and inflammation."

Thanks, Currer, that's very good to hear. Silverman and Klein not abandoning XMRV is good news. Now i'll go and look at the article.

 

And even if XMRV would be no issue in CFS the test to differ CFS patients from others may be already found.

 

Sigh....

What CoOpDx and Satterfield knew was their test could pick up a single copy of the VP62 clone. They did not calibrate their test against a validated positive sample. Lombardi's tests were set up with a much wider sensitivity, as has been pointed out several times before. Bear in mind that the other two human retroviruses have a variability of >85%, and there is no reason to expect any different from the Human Gamma Retroviruses.

Not to mention all the other things he did and did not do, that meant Satterfield had no chance of finding wild XMRV in his samples, however much he wanted to, even in patients riddled with the retrovirus.

Yawn...

Cough....Actually the interview said Cooperative Diagnostics was able to take advantage of the continuing research to look for more aspects of XMRV than Lombardi et al did.

For instance they were able to look for antibodies to more proteins than Lombardi did. In the original paper they looked for antibodies to an MLV protein not to XMRV - because that test had not been developed yet. In the Satterfield paper they developed antibody tests by using actual XMRV proteins and the antibodies they used were able to pick up XMRV in the macaques; ie they were validated.

Dr. Satterfield reported that they validated their test against the same VP62 clone that Lombardi et al did. If you go to the back of the supplementary section of the Lombardi paper you'll see a figure indicating that that worked just fine.

I certainly hope they find more variability in XMRV; thus far they haven't in prostate cancer or CFS patients; doing that would certainly change things

 

Cort, I think the arguement given in responce to your question about antibodies, was extremely weak. If i can see that, then im sure anyone else can, so no need for me to explain why.

To be honest, ive read this and lots of other articles on here over the last week, and I've noticed there is a lot of posturing and positioning going on.

Something us patients need to remember is that this is business to these people (most anyway) and that means $s. I bet that Mikovits knows for sure that there is XMRV but she isnt about to go into detail explaining how to run the tests to find it because she quite rightly wants the credit for it, and the WPI want to make money out of it. They are no doubt developing reliable tests for mass processing.

In addition all these 'negative' studies, and interviews like this one, tell us something. Other people think she is on to something too, else they woudlnt spend their respources (read: money) on trying to replicate it. They try to find it - if they can, great they might be able to take some credit and even make some money out of it somehow. If they cant find it, then there is nothing for them to gain, except possibly developing new ways to find it, and what they need for that is time. So they try to discredit their competition.

It will all come out in the wash eventually.

Agreed..the good thing is with all this work being done - and a study by Jay Levy - which we didn't even know about until a couple of days ago that is just about done - I think they will actually figure this thing out.

 

Thank you for posting this, Cort. You asked very good questions. And thanks to Dr Satterfield for taking the time to answer your questions. Whether or not I agree with what he says, his answers were thoughtful. He didn't give the common condescending line of "I won't bother to explain, because you are patients, not scientists, and you wouldn't understand." Nor did he imply that patients are willing to believe anything because we are desperate. That's refreshing. He also wasn't throwing in "sound bite" kind of proclamations and mud-slinging. I appreciate his giving us the "why" behind his opinions.

You're right --in one sense-- that this wasn't what I want to hear. But I do want to hear serious debate about the science, and Dr Satterfield at least raises some legitimate issues. If he ends up being right that XMRV isn't the cause of ME/CFS, then we need to know that.

I still think a retrovirus makes sense from a clinical standpoint. It presents a kind of unified field theory of the disease, explaining all the various components of it in a way that other etiology theories haven't. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Dr Satterfield is overly optimistic in thinking that if XMRV proves not to be cause, researchers will have had their curiosity aroused and still want to find the cause of ME/CFS. Sad to say, historically that has not been the case.