DR. ERIC KLEIN'S XMRV LECTURE, by Mindy Kitei

[Mindy Kitei]

I just posted on CFS Central. Klein answered the question about XMRV's infectivity rate.

Mindy Kitei
CFS Central
http://www.cfscentral.com

 

[V99]

Thanks Mindy, I especially like the part from Klein, where he mentions the infection rate in controls.:victory:

Excellent stuff as usual

 

[Esther12]

Another interesting tit-bit. Ta Mindy.

 

[RustyJ]

Klein is still confusing people with his responses. He seems to suggest that the 3-7% have somehow shaken off the disease - 'they have signs of prior infection'. Wrong! They have signs of current infection. A retrovirus does not leave the body. Those people are a walking time bomb. His confusing message seems to deliberately mask this message. Is this part of the campaign to minimise any public alarm? Clumsy attempt if it is.

 

[Esther12]

A retrovirus does not leave the body

I'm not sure how confidently we can say that. XMRV could be a funny retrovirus (to cause CFS, it would have to be) and there's a lot we still don't know about it. Anti-bodies could be a sign of prior infection, couldn't they?

 

[V99]

Anti-bodies are also a sign of a current infection.

 

[V99]

He's not saying that their XMRV is current or latent, he's saying they have been infected at some point.

 

[Esther12]

He's not saying that their XMRV is current or latent, he's saying they have been infected at some point.

That's how I took it too.

 

[Sean]

That's how I took it too.

My take as well.

 

[muffin]

I don't know about others, but I forget about the enormous value that Dr. Eric Klein and Dr. Robert Silverman (coauthor of the first study linking XMRV to prostate cancer) have brought to CFIDS. I know I think about Judy Mikovits, Nancy Klimas, Drs. Peterson and Cheney and several other top notch CFIDS researchers who have been other there battling for us for years and decades. But somehow, I have forgotten to really recognize the efforts of these two men.
So from me personally, thank you Drs. Klein and Silverman for your hard work on XMRV and the connections to prostate cancer and CFIDS. They will never read my thank you - but at least I know I've thanked them.

Thanks Mindy for keeping us all up to date. Great work as usual.

I really think that we CFIDS/ME people have far more smart people on OUR side than the CDC has on their side!

 

[V99]

Klein and Silverman are class acts.

 

[SOC]

So from me personally, thank you Drs. Klein and Silverman for your hard work on XMRV and the connections to prostate cancer and CFIDS. They will never read my thank you - but at least I know I've thanked them.

I'll add this to the Giving Thanks list so more of us can remember. :Retro smile: Thanks Muffin!

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

Yes, it is the work of Klimas, Komaroff, etc. that set the stage that pointed in the right direction. Remember, Mikovits said the abnormal RNase factor in CFS led Silverman to urge her to test CFS patients for XMRV.

Peterson's research, showing link to lymphomas, is what made Mikovits say it is likely a retrovirus.

Tina

 

[Stone]

Indeed, thanks to the doctors for their interest and hard work.

I would like to better understand though, how one can have any type of 'prior infection' in the case of a retrovirus, which, by definition, reverse transcribes it's RNA into DNA and then inserts itself into the host cell's DNA which then produces more copies of itself when the cell divides, and therefore results in permanent infection. This isn't new information, the first time I actually heard this was on the Dr. Oz show months and months ago. This show is aimed at the general public. Is there something new about the basic nature of retroviruses we haven't heard? Is it possible XMRV is not a retrovirus? If not, then what is it? :worried: Could it be that the doctor meant to say merely that it's easier to find the antibodies in peripheral blood than it is to find actual virus? That would actually make more sense to me.

 

[SOC]

Indeed, thanks to the doctors for their interest and hard work.

I would like to better understand though, how one can have any type of 'prior infection' in the case of a retrovirus, which, by definition, reverse transcribes it's RNA into DNA and then inserts itself into the host cell's DNA which then produces more copies of itself when the cell divides, and therefore results in permanent infection. This isn't new information, the first time I actually heard this was on the Dr. Oz show months and months ago. This show is aimed at the general public. Is there something new about the basic nature of retroviruses we haven't heard? Is it possible XMRV is not a retrovirus? If not, then what is it? :worried: Could it be that the doctor meant to say merely that it's easier to find the antibodies in peripheral blood than it is to find actual virus? That would actually make more sense to me.

Is this a latency issue? Can a retrovirus be latent?

 

[Stone]

Is this a latency issue? Can a retrovirus be latent?

Good question, and would latency be classifiable as 'prior infection' though?

 

[RustyJ]

Why use the word 'prior' at all if the infection is still there To use it seems to imply something.

At least four classes of infection pertinent to the current discussion seem to be developing in the language being used by some researchers.

1. Shows up in blood, no symptoms - XMRV active
2. Doesn't show up in blood, no symptoms - XMRV latent
3. Shows up in blood, symptoms - XMRV active
4 Doesn't show up in blood, symptoms - XMRV latent

I am quite sure those patients defined in '4' will be most unhappy on discovering they had a prior infection and the inference that they no longer have it. Particularly if this is a later-stage development of the virus which means most of us will be classed as this. Could this be the start of a new battle. On the cusp of getting legitimacy for active XMRV, we face a battle for recognition of those with latent XMRV.

 

[sensing progress]

Wow, I can't believe how much info Dr. Klein packed into those 17 mins. Holy smokes!

 

[Megan]

Thanks Mindy for clarifying that issue! I had definitely heard it differently in the original talk and have been a bit concerned about this point. Just goes to show how careful we need to be in taking everything as gospel in the snippets we are getting from the scientific world.

 

[V99]

Why use the word 'prior' at all if the infection is still there To use it seems to imply something.

As in, they were infected prior to the test.

On the cusp of getting legitimacy for active XMRV, we face a battle for recognition of those with latent XMRV.

The damage from having had an active infection could cause a cascade of problems, so I don't see this as being a problem. Also, we don't know how often or when it reactivates.