Article: The Singh XMRV Patent The Next Cancer for XMRV? Prostate Cancer Results Validated/Progress

Article: The Singh XMRV Patent The Next Cancer for XMRV? Prostate Cancer Results Va

You can view the page at http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?273-The-Singh-XMRV-Patent-The-Next-Cancer-for-XMRV-Prostate-Cancer-Results-Validated-Progress-on-CFS

 

Cort,

Thanks for the review. I did think that her suggestion of a possible algorythm for detection of XMRV in CFS patients using a highly sensitive and then highly specific test was interesting.

A potential testing algorithm for determining the presence of XMRV antibodies includes a highly sensitive screening test to identify all potential positives (such as the ELISA test), followed by a highly specific test (such as the Western blot) to eliminate the false positives.

 

Interesting - somehow missed that in the patent maze.

 

Can someone please explain how this information relates to CFS, other than the NCI will likely study XMRV with more vigor now?

I see how the implications for XMRV are huge- but not quite clear on how it affects ME/CFS.

Thanks.

 

Thats a good question. The really good news is that it appears to kick open the door for more research on XMRV but there isn't a heck of alot on CFS specifically. Dr. Singh has developed several tests that are able to detect the virus in other tissues....but what about CFS and the blood?

There's not alot there. We do know she can find XMRV antibodies in CFS - that itself is really very good news after all the negative studies but things are pretty iffy after that. She patched together the VP62 clone with another to produce her infectious virus - if I was reading it right - and as I remember Dr. Mikovits warned about VP62; it could be that Dr. Singh is better at finding XMRV in organs (that don't have the APOBEC enzyme) than she is in finding it in CFS - that's all speculation, of course...

The fact that Dr. Singh validated the incidence in the semen, no less, (a different tissue entirely) in healthy controls is good for WPI - it solidifies their findings - and that's really good news.

 

Partial confirmation of WPI study - controls

Can someone please explain how this information relates to CFS, other than the NCI will likely study XMRV with more vigor now? I see how the implications for XMRV are huge- but not quite clear on how it affects ME/CFS.

Hey Recovery Soon, just wanted to emphasize two points, in partial answer to your question:

• The 7% finding in semen, and the 5-10% positives for womens' pap smears beautifully jives with what the Lombardi group and others (eg. FDA) have been finding in controls. So this is partial confirmation of the WPI's Science study. Plus, this is another nail in the contamination theory and the zero/zero researchers' coffin.

• As per our note on XMRV Global Action: "Keep in mind that the filing date for these patents was May 17, 2010, so Dr Singh very likely has more goodies up her sleeve, particularly with respect to ME/CFS and XMRV and related MLV's."

In other words, the relative weight of findings on prostate and breast cancer - as opposed to ME/CFS - is likely merely a reflection of timing.
CBS, can you remind us of when Dr Singh began her ME/CFS study with Dr Bateman, and do you have any idea on when approximately we might expect results? <o></o>

 

"If" (that's a logical "if", not a big "if" )...IF Dr Singh's work is valid (told you it was not a big "if") then the conclusions of the negative studies are incorrect. If it is true, as all positive studies have found, that background infection rate is about 5%, then ALL the 0/0 studies are failing to detect.

ALL The prostate cancer findings re: healthy control infection rate are completely incompatible with any study finding 0/0. The only possible explanations for the 0/0 studies - if the PC work is correct - would be extreme and bizarre geographical variation (requiring explanation of the WPI UK findings and an explanation based on weird and stark regional differences in the US) or (back in the real world) that their detection techniques can't find XMRV infection (well, durrhhh...).

Confirmation of a population background infection rate of 5-10% would logically disqualify all 0/0 studies as relevant evidence against WPI findings.

The PC findings in healthy controls alone are massive news. The breast cancer findings are bigger news still. Once things move on a bit in relation to cancer, it will be ME/CFS, not XMRV, that is relegated to a footnote - in much bigger news stories, which will then be about a major cancer breakthrough. At that point, it won't be about us any more, it'll be about XMRV itself, who does it infect, and what diseases is it associated with. And one of the big new battles for us will become: what happens to you if you have ME/CFS and test negative for XMRV...and will there be enough such people left over for CFS to survive as a separate diagnosis?

ETA: In other words, the delay tactic in relation to the news of this year's findings being released to the public gives time not just to roll out answers to vital questions over blood supply screening, accurate detection, transmission etc - it also gives time to wait until the XMRV story is not just about ME/CFS any more, but about many diseases. At which point the news can then be managed in order to downplay the importance of ME/CFS in the picture, which should be easy to do amidst the hubbub over the cancer breakthrough.

Also, what a totally-expected irony that a key part of the explanation to the most massively-funded health problem - cancer - turns out to run right through the most neglected and underfunded health problem - ME/CFS. The answer to the massive problem at the top of your pile of papers turns out to lie on the piece of paper at the bottom that you thought wasn't important, put to one side, and never got round to. "For the want of a nail, the war was lost". Does anybody else see life working out that way all the time, or is it just me?

 

Shit, so it really is in our bodilyfluids? I really didn't think so, since I thought it to be like HIV and therefor only in our blood. But I'll be damned. This means we can't have unprotected sex, share towels, eating utensils or a glass with anyone, right? Shit..there's a lot to think about in this. :mask:

 

XMRV Global Action: "Keep in mind that the filing date for these patents was May 17, 2010, so Dr Singh very likely has more goodies up her sleeve, particularly with respect to ME/CFS and XMRV and related MLV's."

In other words, the relative weight of findings on prostate and breast cancer - as opposed to ME/CFS - is likely merely a reflection of timing.

Thanks much for keeping that important time-context for this work near the front of our minds Parvo. So all this info was submitted for filing way back in May - about the time when the Lo/Alter paper was held back from publication.

You raise a fair-sized question in my mind, then, which is: if all this work was completed and submitted in May, how come it's still not published? Very plausible answer to that would be: lots of important detail there to finish off and clarify, lots of work peer-reviewing it all, and lots of work writing the patent application, which had to be done before publication. But there's got to be a decent chance that the go-ahead for publication of what was finished in May can happen now, now that the patent is done....and meanwhile the CFS study analysis, write-up, and review process continues...and we can perhaps hope to see both published by the end of the year? Or...this week?...

 

Shit, so it really is in our bodilyfluids? I really didn't think so, since I thought it to be like HIV and therefor only in our blood. But I'll be damned. This means we can't have unprotected sex, share towels, eating utensils or a glass with anyone, right? Shit..there's a lot to think about in this. :mask:

Quite so Tia, I'm afraid...assuming of course that anybody actually gives a damn about trying to contain the spread of this infection...and assuming, of course, that it isn't also spread extremely casually, like the flu, which seems entirely feasible given the post-viral nature of ME. If that is the case, and if basically everybody has already been exposed to XMRV and only some have caught it, that would take away one set of headaches...but...

...in this 'flu-like transmission' scenario, of course, the question would then move to "what makes some people vulnerable to XMRV infection?" and in many ways we'd then know far less about ME/CFS than if transmission were harder: we'd have something less than a biomarker - maybe then we're just left with XMRV infection as a piece of evidence that's strongly associated with ME-style immune dysfunction but with XMRV neither necessary nor sufficient to get ME, and not necessarily causal. In whatever scenario, XMRV is still pretty likely to play a key role in disease progression, simply because it's a retrovirus, but it seems to me it works out like this: the easier it is to transmit, the less likely it's the fundamental explanation of ME.

 

I wish I could add some scientific thinking to the comments, but my brain is much more of a follower than a leader that way. (I got a D in high-school science.) Instead, my comment is that, after my initial astonished response to these findings, I found myself in a state of dread ... that the association with breast cancer will hijack XMRV research and funding into pink-ribbon issues only, and that those of us with ME/CFS will once again be cast aside. Someone very dear to me died of breast cancer this year. She was very much on board with the idea that "living death" illnesses like ME/CFS must be get their funding, and quickly too. My fear is that the funding powers that be will not agree with her.

Am I childish, or is this a legitimate fear? Can someone put this anxiety in a more rational context?

 

Am I childish, or is this a legitimate fear? Can someone put this anxiety in a more rational context?

Not at all meadowlark, that's a rising concern for me too today, I basically said the same thing in my post #7 'ETA' above.

Might not seem rational to someone who hasn't lived with ME politics for very long, but sounds like a totally legitimate concern to me. The attempt to separate out the interpretation of the prostate cancer results from the ME/CFS results, and this special "ME/CFS/XMRV taskforce" approach while the exact same controversy exists with regards to the prostate cancer results, all goes back to the politics of ME, ultimately. Not surprising that our history causes us to react to "I've baked you a lovely cake" with a darkly suspicious "Really? What have you put in it?..."

(Warming to that theme.... - "Well...erm...It's got a retrovirus in it..." - "That's OK, a retrovirus cake sounds like heaven from where I'm sitting" - "Oh. I see. Hmm. Hold on a minute...I'm just hearing something on my earphones...no, sorry, that cake wasn't meant for you after all...it's back to the rice cakes for you matey"....)

Rational enough for you?

I guess the counter-argument we both need to remind ourselves of is: with the money that comes in to XMRV research if it does turn out to be a major cancer breakthrough, the sheer quantity of money attention that there'll be around XMRV itself will be like nothing we've ever seen before! No matter how much we'll be in the shadows, surely we'll still benefit from it all?

It'd be like Frickley Athletic gets an FA Cup draw against Brazil. Fair enough, not much chance of progressing to the next round, but imagine what you could do with the gate receipts...

 

"The XMRV in semen finding had important implications because XMRV showed up in the semen in exactly the same percentage (7%) of healthy controls as tested positive in the original Science study"

Thought Science paper found about 4% in healthy, not 7%
Pnas paper found 7%...

but it still confirms the Science paper with finding XMRV in healthy persons, something that the neg studies didnt.
Hope the Singh paper comes soon.

thanks again for buzzing, its nice to see these summaries about whats going on every couple of days!

 

I wish I could add some scientific thinking to the comments, but my brain is much more of a follower than a leader that way. (I got a D in high-school science.) Instead, my comment is that, after my initial astonished response to these findings, I found myself in a state of dread ... that the association with breast cancer will hijack XMRV research and funding into pink-ribbon issues only, and that those of us with ME/CFS will once again be cast aside. Someone very dear to me died of breast cancer this year. She was very much on board with the idea that "living death" illnesses like ME/CFS must be get their funding, and quickly too. My fear is that the funding powers that be will not agree with her.

Am I childish, or is this a legitimate fear? Can someone put this anxiety in a more rational context?

This is a valid concern but I see a silver lining, perhaps a few. We may not get lost in the shuffle if our XMRV incidence rates hold up even at "just" the 67% from the original Science paper. What better way to learn about how one succumbs to XMRV than studying the population most susceptible (by percentages affected) - US.

If this work holds up then XMRV screening will have to be commonplace due to the outcry of concern. Suddenly they will have to find a way to sort out all of these people who have XMRV but don't yet have something "serious" like cancer. Do they have ME, are they at risk for cancer, etc? Perhaps some real physician education will occur to help in that process - IT SHOULD. THAT may help get the pathetic 15% diagnosis rate (US number, I believe) way up which should feed more demand for treatment of the ME population that is "suddenly visible" to the medical community.

Cancer money will by definition drive up the treatment studies and it sure would make sense to have an ME arm in many studies, even if they're primarily aimed at cancer. What a great way to look at different endpoints of XMRV illnesses and what treatments are effective. Furthermore, this may be a way to leverage study dollars just like Nancy Klimas has used DoD money to fund Gulf War illness studies and added on an ME group. For something like 10% of the cost of an standalone ME study she's tacked us on to GWI studies.

I'm sure insurance companies would really like to have effective means of driving down cancer rates and that would seem to point to a vaccine.

So today I'm thankful for Dr. Singh. :Retro smile:

 

Thanks Rivotril - I fixed the % mistake - lots of silver linings I hadn't thought of

 

....in this 'flu-like transmission' scenario, of course, the question would then move to "what makes some people vulnerable to XMRV infection?" and in many ways we'd then know far less about ME/CFS than if transmission were harder: we'd have something less than a biomarker - maybe then we're just left with XMRV infection as a piece of evidence that's strongly associated with ME-style immune dysfunction but with XMRV neither necessary nor sufficient to get ME, and not necessarily causal. In whatever scenario, XMRV is still pretty likely to play a key role in disease progression, simply because it's a retrovirus, but it seems to me it works out like this: the easier it is to transmit, the less likely it's the fundamental explanation of ME.

I don't agree at all. I know I've repeated this 1,000 times but I'll do it again: Remember polio. Just about everyone got exposed: only 10% got sick, with a fever and illness that then went away: only 1% got paralyzed, and the paralysis was due to a more or less random event of the virus getting into the nervous system. There is NO virus that makes everyone who gets exposed sick or even infected, and not everyone gets sick in the same way - for reasons of genetics, other factors, or even just chance events. There would be nothing startling and new about XMRV if it behaved the same way.

The connections to prostate cancer and breast cancer could mean that we, the ME/CFS sick, get studied even harder than we ever dreamed possible. We seem to be people who get chronic infections with - something - and if that something is XMRV, how interesting that we are the only ones who have chronic illness and other people are walking around healthy with it. Perhaps those healthy people are those more vulnerable to the aggressive forms of breast and prostate cancer, and our bodies are doing something that, although it makes us very ill, is somehow controlling the virus in another way? We could be like the HIV elite controllers - everyone's going to want some of our blood to know how we do it.

There seems to be some misplaced concern that the Singh patents didn't discuss CFS as much as cancers. First of all, her cadaver research has been going on a *long* time and she's been looking at XMRV in cancer much longer than she's been looking at it in CFS. And those patents were applied for in May - when did her CFS study even start? And another key point - THERE ARE ALREADY OTHER PATENTS APPLIED FOR IN XMRV DETECTION IN THE BLOOD. She can only patent the unique discoveries that she's made. Someone much more knowledgeable than me could look at the Silverman patents, the WPI patents, etc. and see what's already been covered.

One more point - the patent process is PAINFULLY slow most of the time. The slowness of patents getting published let alone granted is a totally separate problem from our concerns about research being "held back" etc. The sheer inertia of the patent system does not discriminate and tends to slow everything down equally.

 

Great news Cort - thanks for posting. Virals now in the fore ? at last.

 

Perhaps those healthy people are those more vulnerable to the aggressive forms of breast and prostate cancer, and our bodies are doing something that, although it makes us very ill, is somehow controlling the virus in another way?

UT,

Interesting question.

Years ago a researcher likened the chronic immune
activation seen in ME/CFS to chemotherapy.

 

Well I for one think the cancer connection will only help us. As someone said earlier more research dollars from a vast research program.

I've been singing the following couple of lines to myself for days (to the tune of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree".

Tie a pink ribbon
Round this awful ME.
It's been twenty long years
And I want to be free.

Okay the new lyrics are a stretch, but I think you get the idea.

Lynn

 

Thanks for pointing out the May 17th filing date - she has surely progressed rapidly since then. That autopsy study will be very interesting. It was completed a couple of months ago, I believe. It could be hitting the journals any time now I suppose.