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

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
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.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,193
Likes
32
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
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 :angel:

(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.)
 

cigana

Senior Member
Messages
1,093
Likes
929
Location
UK
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
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

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
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 ?
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Likes
3,743
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
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.
 

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
527
Location
Los Angeles, CA
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

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Likes
37,707
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
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

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Likes
37,707
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
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

Daughters High School Graduation
Messages
1,617
Likes
634
Location
Upstate SC, USA
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
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
Likes
4,793
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.