Dr. Mikovits answers my mail: Something important

[Bob]

Here are some points that I noted while reading it... Some of this might be incorrect... I need to check over the paper again...

"All nine laboratories used
XMRV/P-MLV nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT),
serological and/or culture assays of their own choosing..."

The positive controls used XMRV taken from the 22Rv1 cell line.

The WPI failed to reliably detect the positive controls (i.e. XMRV taken from the 22Rv1 cell line), whereas all (all? or nearly all?) the other labs did have success with the positive controls.

The WPI did not report on their cultured samples because they had an issue of contamination with mycoplasma.

Lo did use cultured assays, as advised by Mikovits, but had no success.

 

[Esther12]

Thanks for all that work Bob. It was good to have you provide a summary like that. It's still possible that some HGRV-type thing will be right for CFS, but it does seem like anyone claiming an association is back to square one for now.

 

[Sam Carter]

...

The only argument that I can see really remains is that the collection and preparation of the samples were done in such as way as to not preserve the viruses (i don't recall seeing any info in the paper with regards to that part of the methodology.), but even this looks like a weak argument when some of the other aspects of the study are taken into account.

...

Hi Bob,

(I'm not cyber-stalking you, btw! I'm just interested in understanding this and teasing apart the different threads of the argument to try and improve my own understanding.)

If it's true that, somehow, the BWG failed to preserve the virus in the samples would this not, in fact, be evidence that Frank Ruscetti's lab is contaminated, given that he managed to culture virus from 9 out of 25 samples (6/15 controls and 3/10 patients)?

If there was no virus in the samples thanks to the BWG's careless handling, what exactly did he culture?

Sam

 

[SOC]

I've just read through the BWG published paper. (I've only read it once, so I can't remember it all, and I haven't got to grips with all of it yet.)

And I have to say that this is the first time that I've thought that XMRV research looks like it's not going anywhere.

Of course the results are not absolutely conclusive, but there are striking multiple reasons why this research shows XMRV testing to be weak.

Many of the arguments that I have previously used to say that the study could be ignored, do not stand up after reading the paper.

The only argument that I can see really remains is that the collection and preparation of the samples were done in such as way as to not preserve the viruses (i don't recall seeing any info in the paper with regards to that part of the methodology.), but even this looks like a weak argument when some of the other aspects of the study are taken into account.

After reading it, I'm not surprised that the VIPdx have withdrawn their testing, based on the following conclusion in the paper:

"Based on these findings, we conclude that currently
available XMRV/P-MLV assays, including the assays
employed by the three participating laboratories that
previously reported positive results on samples from CFS
patients and controls (2, 4), cannot reproducibly detect direct
virus markers (RNA, DNA, or culture) or specific antibodies
in blood samples from subjects previously characterized as
XMRV/P-MLV positive (all but one with a diagnosis of CFS)
or healthy blood donors."


However, the conclusion of the paper was slightly more nuanced than I had been led to believe:

"However, we cannot definitively
exclude the possibility that the levels of XMRV/P-MLV
markers in blood may be at or below the limit of detection of
all assays and/or fluctuate over time as recently described in
experimentally infected macaque studies (22)."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1213841.full.pdf

Thanks, Bob! As always, I appreciate your summaries.

 

[Bob]

Hi Bob,

(I'm not cyber-stalking you, btw! I'm just interested in understanding this and teasing apart the different threads of the argument to try and improve my own understanding.)

If it's true that, somehow, the BWG failed to preserve the virus in the samples would this not, in fact, be evidence that Frank Ruscetti's lab is contaminated, given that he managed to culture virus from 9 out of 25 samples (6/15 controls and 3/10 patients)?

If there was no virus in the samples thanks to the BWG's careless handling, what exactly did he culture?

Sam

I agree Sam, that whatever way it's looked at, the results are poor.

And, yes, the fact that some labs found the negative controls to be positive is (just) one of the reasons that I think the results are so weak.

The study is more thorough than I thought it was going to be, and I was personally surprised at how poor the results are.

There's just no results in it at all that would lead one to think that the XMRV research is solid.

I've not yet been able to interpret all of the BWG study for myself. I've got to read it again.



BTW Sam, I know you are cyber-stalking me really!

 

[Firestormm]

I also need to re-read the paper, but I am still concerned about the significance now of those 'tests' commercially available which supposedly told patients they were 'XMRV positive'.

You have a view on that at all Bob? Only it strikes me that all these labs in BWG were able to use any assay or detection method they liked (see Contamination also from Prof Racaniello). So surely they would have used the same assays etc. as were being used for patient testing?

Anyway, it seems I have more (not less) reading to do as always. Almost a full-time job sometimes isn't it?!

 

[redo]

Because of the thread here yesterday, where I talked about the BWG study not using Trizol or any other preservatives, I asked Dr. Mikovits yesterday questions via email, and she responded. I think that her answer is very important.
This was my question:


And this was her answer:


So, what Dr. Mikovits says is the following:
1) The purpose of the BWG was to develope a test that would suite testing the blood supply. That means that you cannot use whatever procedures you think are the best, you can use only procedures that would suite testing blood donations for the blood supply.
2) As opposed to that, the Lipkin study is designed to test whether the association of HGRV to ME/CFS is correct, and there the WPI would be able to do erverything (I think) as they want to.

Good info omerbasket. I haven't read the whole thread. So my question might be answered elsewhere, but did you ask her for permission to report the correspondence?

 

[Daffodil]

bob...ohhhh...hehe it makes sense now thanks!

isnt there a group who got 10 million to find our virus? surely someone will find it soon, between montoya, peterson, wpi, lipkin, etc etc. seems like an eternity to me but finally there is so much interest in us...all thanks to the WPI.