Cells, Vaccines, XMRV - new FDA paper

[Mya Symons]

I didn't know that when they needed new cells they used the same cell line they had previously been using to grow new cells. How could they continue to believe that there is no way these cell lines (used for vaccines) could be contaminated even once with a virus (or cross breed of viruses) capable of infecting humans. It makes no sense.

 

[currer]

As I remember it, there is a comment by one of the speakers in this paper about his reactions when monitoring a patient website - interesting to see this happening in 1999.

This FDA paper seems to be connected to this paper which has been put up on PR several times, - also long, I'm afraid.
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/fda_workshop.htm

 

[currer]

Quote
I'd like to know why it's so difficult to detect a latent retrovirus, if the DNA info is still there?
Is it purely a case of low copy numbers?
Quote

Hi Bob,

You coulld ask Redruth this one but I think it is because a retrovirus spends most of its time as a provirus, inserted into the cellular DNA, and is quite inactive, unless the cell divides, in which case the retroviral DNA will be copied too.

Just how many active virions would be produced at that stage - I dont know, possibly not many.

PCR would only pick up the viral genome if there were virions about, and this would be intermitttent.
A long lived cell might only infrequently divide and go through the virion producing process.

This is why Judy Mikovits tests are sometimes negative in an XMRV positive person, and why repeat testing is necessary.

 

[currer]

Two other interesting articles:-

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluVaccinesCancerRisks.php

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3750b1_01.pdf

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/POTDC.php

 

[WillowJ]

I found this old thread while looking to see if something had been posted

Quote
I'd like to know why it's so difficult to detect a latent retrovirus, if the DNA info is still there?
Is it purely a case of low copy numbers?
Quote

Hi Bob,

You coulld ask Redruth this one but I think it is because a retrovirus spends most of its time as a provirus, inserted into the cellular DNA, and is quite inactive, unless the cell divides, in which case the retroviral DNA will be copied too.

If this is the case, the viral DNA might be packaged and inaccessible

basics of packaging

image showing single nucleotides to chromatin

brief mention of epigenetics, euchromatin, heterochromatin, from a gene modification company (this is star wars stuff, i find it interesting)

Euchromatin and heterochromatin in Drosophila (fruit fly) here, pretty nice photo

Another pic, medium context, longer article here

bigger context in Arabidopsis (flowering plant with conveniently fast reproduction cycle, so it's used in scientific studies a lot)

more real-life scifi histone modifications to try to treat cancer

 

[alex3619]

Hi, on integrated viral DNA I am not up on current developments. I am guessing that to find it they can disrupt the nuclear membrane and open up the DNA - it is possible to find it this way, just difficult. Low copy number is probably the primary problem. Each infected cell may have only one copy, although it might have many. Most cells are unlikely to be infected though. A more likely problem is viral methylation. Many copies of infected virus are likely to be methylated or damaged by defenses (again I dont know the latest research on defenses against integrated viral DNA, so I am speculating). As a result many copies of the virus might not be detectable using PCR. My guess is that this is an area fraught with difficulty. Success at finding integrated viral DNA is likely to be low ... it will require intensive search. Active viral RNA is easier to find if present as there are much larger numbers typically. However, in the case of XMRV we know that viral RNA will be quickly damaged in the blood and so be difficult to find (see the Macaque studies) - cell to cell transfer is much more likely in cells that lack adequate defenses, and its those we might consider as biopsy targets. Bye, Alex