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

Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
Thanks Mindy, I especially like the part from Klein, where he mentions the infection rate in controls.:victory:

Excellent stuff as usual
 

RustyJ

Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
Messages
1,197
Likes
899
Location
Mackay, Aust
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

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,350
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?
 
Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
He's not saying that their XMRV is current or latent, he's saying they have been infected at some point.
 

muffin

Senior Member
Messages
940
Likes
15
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!
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,351
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!
 
Messages
1,479
Likes
522
Location
Clay, Alabama
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

Senior Member
Messages
371
Likes
12
Location
NC
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

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,351
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?
 

RustyJ

Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
Messages
1,197
Likes
899
Location
Mackay, Aust
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.
 

Megan

Senior Member
Messages
233
Likes
13
Location
Australia
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.
 
Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
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.