Dr. Enlander XMRV

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,965
Likes
10,683

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,350
Please forgive me, but I am a lay person and do not understand the difference.
Reading the thread, it seems to me that they followed the same protocol as Whittemore, but I guess I'm wrong?
As a lay person who has read the thread: there were differences. It would be surprising if these differences could explain the total failure to detect XMRV amongst their patients were the WPI's results to hold up, but as we know so little about XMRV it is still possible. There seems to be some uncertainty over exactly what the WPI needed to do to find XMRV amongst their patients. This is all much disputed, some will tell you these tests will have picked up XMRV if it was there, others will tell you it never had a chance.

re Enlander: this is a bit strange if he helped submit samples!

"These groups have rushed to publish unsatisfactory
comparative research with anecdotal results, based on small number of
ill-defined patients, stale specimens and differing research methods."

Are we sure his patients were part of the second UK study? If not, is this another batch of negatives? Maybe having used the same testing procedures?
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,965
Likes
10,683
I e-mailed Dr. Enlander yesterday asking him about my personal results from the study and
he answered me that his patients (me included) were part of Dr. Kerr's study and our results came back negative for all
of us.

It might be that Dr. Enlander just sent the samples as a courtesy and was not part of how they ran the studies.
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
45
Nielk-

If that's what Enlander says, then I have to go with my initial assumption: Kerr was collecting data for another study while finishing up the UK one, using the same methodology. He had planned on a study of larger scope, including blood from Enlander's patients (Enlander contributed a lot of samples to Kerr's gene studies)... I guess his completely negative results made him abandon ship. Though I still wonder if Enlander's patients were made aware of the difference between getting tested by Kerr and by VIP (perhaps Enlander assumed they would use the same methodology, protocol, etc?).

Btw, about the differences between Kerr and WPI XMRV testing methods.. There were significant differences as summarized at a couple points in that thread... there was a response by the WPI itself at one point (I think it's in that thread) that included their own critique or summation... One of the biggest differences to me was that Kerr et al did not culture their cells with the (potential) virus for anywhere near as long as the WPI did (hours vs. days). Also, they did not activate the cells in the manner clearly indicated in the Science publication. The WPI has since insisted that the viral copy numbers are originally so low that without boosting growth (by activating cells, i.e. making them replicate faster, and the virus with them) and giving a longer time for that growth, there would not be enough virus to detect by the methodologies used. This point and others have been debated back and forth, but it is a major difference, and personally I don't understand why the last three studies did not follow the WPI methodology on at least this point.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
Nielk-

If that's what Enlander says, then I have to go with my initial assumption: Kerr was collecting data for another study while finishing up the UK one, using the same methodology. He had planned on a study of larger scope, including blood from Enlander's patients (Enlander contributed a lot of samples to Kerr's gene studies)... I guess his completely negative results made him abandon ship. Though I still wonder if Enlander's patients were made aware of the difference between getting tested by Kerr and by VIP (perhaps Enlander assumed they would use the same methodology, protocol, etc?).

Btw, about the differences between Kerr and WPI XMRV testing methods.. There were significant differences as summarized at a couple points in that thread... there was a response by the WPI itself at one point (I think it's in that thread) that included their own critique or summation... One of the biggest differences to me was that Kerr et al did not culture their cells with the (potential) virus for anywhere near as long as the WPI did (hours vs. days). Also, they did not activate the cells in the manner clearly indicated in the Science publication. The WPI has since insisted that the viral copy numbers are originally so low that without boosting growth (by activating cells, i.e. making them replicate faster, and the virus with them) and giving a longer time for that growth, there would not be enough virus to detect by the methodologies used. This point and others have been debated back and forth, but it is a major difference, and personally I don't understand why the last three studies did not follow the WPI methodology on at least this point.
no amplification no activation no cigar
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,965
Likes
10,683
Nielk-

If that's what Enlander says, then I have to go with my initial assumption: Kerr was collecting data for another study while finishing up the UK one, using the same methodology. He had planned on a study of larger scope, including blood from Enlander's patients (Enlander contributed a lot of samples to Kerr's gene studies)... I guess his completely negative results made him abandon ship. Though I still wonder if Enlander's patients were made aware of the difference between getting tested by Kerr and by VIP (perhaps Enlander assumed they would use the same methodology, protocol, etc?).

Btw, about the differences between Kerr and WPI XMRV testing methods.. There were significant differences as summarized at a couple points in that thread... there was a response by the WPI itself at one point (I think it's in that thread) that included their own critique or summation... One of the biggest differences to me was that Kerr et al did not culture their cells with the (potential) virus for anywhere near as long as the WPI did (hours vs. days). Also, they did not activate the cells in the manner clearly indicated in the Science publication. The WPI has since insisted that the viral copy numbers are originally so low that without boosting growth (by activating cells, i.e. making them replicate faster, and the virus with them) and giving a longer time for that growth, there would not be enough virus to detect by the methodologies used. This point and others have been debated back and forth, but it is a major difference, and personally I don't understand why the last three studies did not follow the WPI methodology on at least this point.
Thank you Dr. Yes for your clarification on the subject of methodology of testing.
I too don't understand why they didn't use the exact methods that were used by WPI. I thought the whole idea was to REPLICATE their study to give it more substance.
So, I guess personally, I don't know where I stand right now with my results.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,965
Likes
10,683
I just received in the mail a letter from VIP Labs since I was put on a waiting list, to ask if I still want to take their
culture test which has been improved to be more accurate and sensitive.

Being that I tested negative with Dr. Enlander's samples sent to Dr. Kerr, I wonder if I should take this
test to see if there is a different outcome?
 
Messages
3
Likes
0
If you dont do it you would just be still wondering!
Its a great chance for you to do it!
Interesting for all of us to see if it will differ or not!

Good luck!

Tino
 
K

_Kim_

Guest
I just received in the mail a letter from VIP Labs since I was put on a waiting list, to ask if I still want to take their
culture test which has been improved to be more accurate and sensitive.

Being that I tested negative with Dr. Enlander's samples sent to Dr. Kerr, I wonder if I should take this
test to see if there is a different outcome?
Neilk, it might be worth asking VIPdx how much longer until they will be offering the serology test.

Their culture test, though improved as it may be, is not going to catch everyone who is XMRV+. I hope you can get both the culture AND the serology test done at the same time.