CROI (Retrovirology and Opportunistic Infections, Boston) on XMRV and CFS

[free at last]

I was not looking foward to this conference, from what you guys are mentioning it doesnt seem to be depressing as much as i thought it would, though i havent heard Kurt give hes take on it yet, wonder if kurt will notice the under hand attempts to manipulate information from comments by both stoye and switzer. i never trusted j stoye, add switzer to that list plz

 

[eric_s]

Im confused by your comments here Eric coffin im sure would press for the IAP test, the spanish did that, and unlike the oaks paper with 100% contaimation detection ( seemed to work well there ? ) the spanish find zero. why is the IAP test not a sure fire way to detect contamination Eric just because the spanish didnt find it, sorry im confused by what you mean

What i meant is that there is a concern the IAP test will return a "contamination positive" result for a sample that is in reality XMRV+ but not contaminated by mouse material, because XMRV has a way of importing mouse IAP or something like that into a cell. I don't remember the exact mechanism and i'm no scientist, but it was something like that. That XMRV being present will make the IAP test react, which would then be falsely taken as evidence for sample contamination.
And since the Spanish seem to have run the IAP test on their XMRV+ samples without it detecting contamination i thought that's interesting. We could see that at least not in any case an XMRV+ sample will also be found contaminated when using the IAP test.

 

[eric_s]

I felt like Coffin and also the other "deniers" don't seem to be comfortable.

What was really bad was those couple of comments in the Q&A session about people not believing in HIV believing in XMRV and seeking ARVs and about labs offering tests to make money.
Unless the WPI and VIP Dx are lying (please prove) this is absolutely not true for them. RedLabs, i don't know, but it's the same test like VIP Dx, so it's definitely not a test that was developped for commercial reasons. And i have not met one person on a ME/CFS forum who is interested in another test than VIP Dx/RedLabs. We don't want the "drop of blood on a paper test" anyway, so don't try to use this to question the motives of those people who don't make money with their tests. I wonder if some of those comments were planned, like a PR operation.

 

[leaves]

We need comments here http://rybicki.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/incroiable-quatre/
Its very nasty.

 

[eric_s]

I think the authors of Lombardi et al. should have an attorney write to Stoye (Mr. Liar). What he says about no other study confirming their finding of the prevalence of XMRV in healthy controls is clearly not true, as far as i know, which could easily be proven. And it harms those authors' reputations as scientists, their public image.

 

[leaves]

I agree. THE blog above is really sick and full of lies. Bad thing is that the writer is so spinned that he isn't even aware of it.

 

[eric_s]

We need comments here http://rybicki.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/incroiable-quatre/
Its very nasty.

I don't think it's worth it. It's the South African version of ERV. The info given there is wrong "there's no association" and i also think it's wrong the authors of Lombardi et al. did not want to present (not sure though). Sue them or just don't care. I don't think it's worth giving attention to any student's blog. Wow, they got drunk last night. How cool when you're away from home for the first time

(In the post above i was referring to J. Stoye, who had the mic at CROI. I don't know if he's smarter than the blog's author, but unfortunately he matters.)

 

[Esther12]

No need to add to their view count if they're just rubbish.

 

[cigana]

A member of the audience (from Melborne) made two interesting points on prostate cancer:

(1) it is related to the aquisition of sexually transmitted infections (so these could be reactivating the XMRV)
(2) prostate cancer is the only cancer that HIV patients on anti-retrovirals are less likely to get than the general population

 

[eric_s]

Exactly, Cigana. I've heard this one too. It's interesting. I thought it would be good to have data from HIV+ people who aren't on ARVs. Probably hard to get...
And what about the other types of cancer that have been mentioned in connection with XMRV or ME/CFS? Breast cancer (Ila Singh's patent application), for example.

 

[free at last]

What i meant is that there is a concern the IAP test will return a "contamination positive" result for a sample that is in reality XMRV+ but not contaminated by mouse material, because XMRV has a way of importing mouse IAP or something like that into a cell. I don't remember the exact mechanism and i'm no scientist, but it was something like that. That XMRV being present will make the IAP test react, which would then be falsely taken as evidence for sample contamination.
And since the Spanish seem to have run the IAP test on their XMRV+ samples without it detecting contamination i thought that's interesting. We could see that at least not in any case an XMRV+ sample will also be found contaminated when using the IAP test.

Ahh Sorry Eric, yes of course thats what you meant, Im sure i read Judys concerns were exactly what your suggesting. that she thought it could produce false contamination positives, So with you, why indeed was the spanish samples all negative then ( and Alters btw ) ? only 3 possible reasons 1 because there was no contamination in the spanish samples 2 the contamination studys are contaminating there own samples And the IAP test is working fine. 3 the IAP test seems to intermitently produce false positives, sometimes but not others ? that seems unlikely doesnt it. the other two then ?

 

[Purple]

I don't think it's worth it. It's the South African version of ERV.

The blog is by Prof Ed Rybicki, written for the benefit of his students at University of Cape Town which is a respected university in the region. The entry is the only mention of XMRV on his blog.

http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/Staff/Ed/Rybicki.htm

 

[SilverbladeTE]

A member of the audience (from Melborne) made two interesting points on prostate cancer:

(1) it is related to the aquisition of sexually transmitted infections (so these could be reactivating the XMRV)
(2) prostate cancer is the only cancer that HIV patients on anti-retrovirals are less likely to get than the general population

bingo!
Male homosexuals have extremely high sexual infection rates (hard and sad fact their community knows abot and has worked on for years)
this means high risk of likelyhood of cancers associated with such, ie, prostate cancer
so if they are having low rates on antivirals vs those who are not
that's pretty damn big issue right there!

Yeah guy on mike...seemed ot have forgot a lot of stuff...and the absence of those who've found/supported XMRV makes that conference seem incredibly biased....and bias has NO place in science.

 

[glenp]

We need comments here http://rybicki.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/incroiable-quatre/
Its very nasty.

i left a comment

 

[urbantravels]

Male homosexuals have extremely high sexual infection rates

The medical/research community has taken to using the term "MSM", which means men who have sex with men. If you look through the whole CROI program, not just the XMRV stuff, you'll see this abbreviation used over and over again.

The practical reality is that many men who have sex with men do not self-identify as homosexuals, particularly in societies where homosexuality is extremely stigmatized or even outlawed. They may be married and live outwardly "respectable" lives as their community defines respectable, all the while having lots of sex with other men on the down-low. And of course some men are openly bisexual in societies where it's possible to do so.

Public health workers realized at some point that they couldn't properly study patterns of HIV transmission by trying to group men as hetero- and homosexual, so they just use "MSM". If they ask a man "Are you gay?" they may get an emphatic NO, but if they just ask if they ever have sex with other men, they may get a more honest answer.

 

[alex3619]

Exactly, Cigana. I've heard this one too. It's interesting. I thought it would be good to have data from HIV+ people who aren't on ARVs. Probably hard to get...
And what about the other types of cancer that have been mentioned in connection with XMRV or ME/CFS? Breast cancer (Ila Singh's patent application), for example.

Hie eric_s, my take on the breast cancer issue, for example, is that they are probably looking for prostate cancer in HIV+ males. There is probably no research study looking for breast cancer specifically. There might however be studies looking at overall cancer rates. It occurs to me that some might trend toward reduced prevalence, but only in prostate cancer is it strong enough a trend doctors are commenting. It would be nice to read a published study on this however. Bye, Alex

 

[alex3619]

They need to take the maggot out behind the woodshed and whoop the hell out of him. He is useless and I pretty much think Coffin has crawled down in the dung with him.

Hi everyone, I am not looking at just this one quote, but can we please contain our remarks to the facts.

I do not trust Stoye or Switzer. That is my opinion. I could be wrong about their trustworthiness.

Stoye has been caught publicly making an incorrect claim at a conference, regarding XMRV. He probably justifies it some way, but that is just spin. Point out the factual error, and let everyone draw their own conclusion. What I find hard to accept is that nobody challenged him. If a researcher affiliated with the WPI were there, he would have been challenged I am sure. With all those researchers there who supposedly know a lot about XMRV, who did not challenge him, what does that say about the state of research? They are trying to prove a point, and not thinking sufficiently critically.

Bye
Alex

 

[August59]

Hi everyone, I am not looking at just this one quote, but can we please contain our remarks to the facts.

I do not trust Stoye or Switzer. That is my opinion. I could be wrong about their trustworthiness.

Stoye has been caught publicly making an incorrect claim at a conference, regarding XMRV. He probably justifies it some way, but that is just spin. Point out the factual error, and let everyone draw their own conclusion. What I find hard to accept is that nobody challenged him. If a researcher affiliated with the WPI were there, he would have been challenged I am sure. With all those researchers there who supposedly know a lot about XMRV, who did not challenge him, what does that say about the state of research? They are trying to prove a point, and not thinking sufficiently critically.

Bye
Alex

Alex - You are right. Not the right place. My bad!! Thanks

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Urbantravels
sigh, people/cultures are still very damn silly on issues of sexuality :/

 

[anciendaze]

William M. Switzer of the CDC has a bachelor's degree in biology with a concentration on microbiology. His graduate degree is a Masters in Public Health. If he is hit with any serious technical questions he can always claim ignorance. The fact that he continues to present CDC results, instead of more qualified people, should speak volumes.