• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

Dr. Mikovits explains why it just cannot be a contamination

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
I think you meant "journal", without the S. Oh, and isn't it odd that this is a journal who have published lots of negative studies about XMRV, and only negative studies about XMRV? The journal that looks exactly like the journal "Virology", that also published only negative studies about XMRV, and is probably connected to "Retrovirology"?



Ok You got me on that one :eek::eek: Some of the researchers did draw conclusions - got it! :D:D

But this with Raccaniello



He is a scientist, he does run a research lab and he is giving his opinion.......so shoot him! :)
"life and death are in the power of the tongue". When he said such and idiotic thing, when he knows that as a scientist every word of his might be taken as a proven thing by laymen, a thing that he himself contradicts in his blog (and his statements on the comments section in the blog), he might be indirectly causing other people to die (As Dr. Jason's study prove that ME/CFS patients tend to die much younger than helathy people; As cancer is a very dangerous disease; And as XMRV might be the cause of other deadly diseases). So I won't shoot him, but with his words he might have contibuted to build the gun that would be used to shoot patients to death with a "rumor retrovirus" killing them.
 

Jemal

Senior Member
Messages
1,031
Likes
65
Hehehe, i like a lot how she (or whoever) put the last sentence in really big letters :D
You gotta also like the statement that experienced researchers understand the limits of PCR technology. If that isn't a sneer...

It's just too bad it's starting to resemble a boxing match.
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
Dr. Racaniello's blog entry gives a much more accurate view of what he really thinks. In answer to a question posted on his blog, he did cop to having given Trine Tsouderos that quote, but that he had followed it up with qualifying statements which she did not include in her article. Interesting choice, that.

http://www.virology.ws/2010/12/21/is-xmrv-a-laboratory-contaminant/
Quite disheartening to hear Professor Racaniello say in the Chicago tribune, "These four papers are probably the beginning of the end of XMRV and CFS"

Does it matter what else he says about that statement unless it is to take it back?
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
If i read the entire blog entry and his replies to comments
i did. Looks like he's trying to both backtrack and uphold the contamination causation.

here is just a few posts about his statement:

#
Omerbasket [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Mr. Racaniello. You said in the comments: "There are clearly questions that remained to be addressed". You also said that LNCap cells cannot produce antibodies - and you probably know that the WPI found antibodies to XMRV, and it is published in the Science paper. Meaning that it just cannot be a contamination.
So why, if you think and know all the above, you told the Chicago Tribune today that "it is the beginning of the end for XMRV"?
Flag
4 people liked this. Like Reply Reply
#

profvrr [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Omerbasket
The finding of antibodies does not necessarily disprove contamination
- there are other explanations. My statement to the Tribune yesterday
was based on my initial reading of the Retrovirology papers. However
upon further consideration it is clear that the results of all four
papers do not challenge the existence of XMRV in patients; rather they
point out potential pitfalls in doing research on this virus.
Flag
Like Reply Reply
#

Otis [Moderator] 17 minutes ago in reply to profvrr
While I appreciate your willingness to reconsider your initial position it makes one wonder about how much effort you apply to appropriate scientific rigor prior to making such comments, blog posts or podcasts. Your statement here does little to undo conclusions based on your previous statement.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Wow, i just saw that in the meantime Dr. Klein of the Cleveland Clinic replied to Dr. Racianellos blog and said that they have reported XMRV integration in fresh human tissue. What i hoped for yesterday seems to be happening. By claiming XMRV is not a real human virus those people have now made themselves some very powerful "enemies". They have attacked some of the best. We are very lucky from that point of view, if you look at who now is challenged to defend our position. Klein, Silverman, de Risi (the discoverers of XMRV), Alter... don't look good for them :cool:
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Messages
7,371
Likes
2,113
Location
Arizona in winter & W. North America otherwise
Wow, i just saw that in the meantime Dr. Klein of the Cleveland Clinic replied to Dr. Racianellos blog and said that they have reported XMRV integration in fresh human tissue. What i hoped for yesterday seems to be happening. By claiming XMRV is not a real human virus those people have now made themselves some very powerful "enemies". They have attacked some of the best. We are very lucky from that point of view, if you look at who now is challenged to defend our position. Klein, Silverman, de Risi (the discoverers of XMRV), Alter... don't look good for them :cool:
Do you have a link to that? That would be great news.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Me, personally, i have respect for how Dr. Racianello takes the time to reply to comments on his blog. Of course i don't like to hear something might be the end of XMRV and CFS, but i have no problem with him.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Do you have a link to that? That would be great news.
With great pleasure :D
http://www.virology.ws/2010/12/21/is-xmrv-a-laboratory-contaminant/
A bit less than halfway down in the comments...

Eric Klein, Cleveland Clinic 1 hour ago

We have reported XMRV integration in fresh frozen prostate tissue taken directly from patients at radical prostatectomy that has never been put in tissue culture and believe this is solid evidence of authentic human infection . See Dong et al PNAS 2007 and Kim et al. J Virol 2008
Get them, Eric :tongue:
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,362
Wow, i just saw that in the meantime Dr. Klein of the Cleveland Clinic replied to Dr. Racianellos blog and said that they have reported XMRV integration in fresh human tissue. What i hoped for yesterday seems to be happening. By claiming XMRV is not a real human virus those people have now made themselves some very powerful "enemies". They have attacked some of the best. We are very lucky from that point of view, if you look at who now is challenged to defend our position. Klein, Silverman, de Risi (the discoverers of XMRV), Alter... don't look good for them :cool:
This is good news, but I'm still unhappy that his earlier incorrect statement remains in Trine's article without his correction. I suspect she gets bigger readership than does his blog. :Retro mad:
 

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
525
Location
Los Angeles, CA
There's a real conflict here between the 24/7 news cycle and the need to carefully assess the information in complicated scientific papers before giving an opinion on them. The story unfolding on Dr. R's blog is an interesting one - he's already had to revise his original post numerous times as people come in and clarify/correct. It was exciting to see Eric Klein from the Cleveland Clinic pop up with some critical information about viral integration.

I'm a big fan of Dr. R., but I wish he wouldn't have made that "beginning of the end" comment to TT before really getting his arms around the claims that were being made in the papers and the arguments against them. Let those among us who have never made a quick comment to a journalist that we later regretted cast the first stone....
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Messages
7,371
Likes
2,113
Location
Arizona in winter & W. North America otherwise
Raccaniello has definitely reconsidered his comments to the Tribune author. He is profvrr

Lombardi and Lo et al identified a human antibody response to a gamma retroviral infection and demonstrated that live gamma retrovirus isolated from human blood could infect human cells in culture. That can't be explained by contamination can it?

profvrr
It's possible that some individuals are infected with XMRV or a
closely related virus. Or that the LNCaP used for co-culture with
human PBMC were contaminated with XMRV. These are important questions
that need to be answered.


But doesn't the demonstration of infectivity in culture by Ruscetti et al directly undermine the claim by Hue et al that the sequences encode an envelope that (as you say) "cannot attach to human cells"?

profvrr [Moderator]

Yes, assuming that the virus obtained in culture has the same sequence
as that deposited in the database. But the WPI sequences in GenBank -
at least the full length ones - are nearly identical to the De Risi
isolate which has the MoMLV homology. There are clearly questions that
remain to be addressed.


Dr. Yasuhiro Ikeda from the Mayo Clinic reported in a talk from March of this year that he had found some LnCap cell-lines to be infected with XMRV. Is such a cell-line capable of producing antibodies?

profvrr [Moderator]
No, LNCap cells cannot produce antibodies.

Dear Prof Racaniello, I am a follower of your podcasts and blogging, I noted that in the Chicago Tribune you are quoted as saying "These four papers are probably the beginning of the end of XMRV and CFS," although this does seem at odds with the comments in this comment section and the tone of your blog, would you be able to clarify your statement? were you mis quoted in the Chicago Tribune?

profvrr [Moderator]
I did make that statement to the Tribune, and followed it with
comments similar to those in this blog post. I do believe that the
MoMLV homology is a big problem, but not an impossible one to explain.
I do not believe that the four Retrovirology papers prove that XMRV is
not involved in human disease.


I thought XMRV had been found intergrated into prostate cancer cells? Could that be contamination? Funny how there seems to be a bit of an Atlantic divide on this.

profvrr
Silverman and colleagues published a paper in PLoS One in which the
integration of XMRV into the human prostate cancer cell line DU145 was
studied. They infect the cells with virus and find viral DNA
integrated into the genome of the cells. Looking at the paper, I don't
see any reason to believe that the cells were already infected with
XMRV, although they don't state that they checked uninfected cells.
Flag


Cleveland Clinic - Eric Klein, Cleveland Clinic [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to profvrr
We have reported XMRV integration in fresh frozen prostate tissue taken directly from patients at radical prostatectomy that has never been put in tissue culture and believe this is solid evidence of authentic human infection . See Dong et al PNAS 2007 and Kim et al. J Virol 2008

So after all this time we don't really have any clear evidence that XMRV is able to infect humans at all? I wonder what Silverman thinks about all this.

profvrr [Moderator]

Remember that WPI has found antibodies to XMRV in patient sera, and
has been able to propagate the virus in cultured cells. So there are
still issues to be clarified - see my other comment on this issue.
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
Wow, i just saw that in the meantime Dr. Klein of the Cleveland Clinic replied to Dr. Racianellos blog and said that they have reported XMRV integration in fresh human tissue. What i hoped for yesterday seems to be happening. By claiming XMRV is not a real human virus those people have now made themselves some very powerful "enemies". They have attacked some of the best. We are very lucky from that point of view, if you look at who now is challenged to defend our position. Klein, Silverman, de Risi (the discoverers of XMRV), Alter... don't look good for them :cool:
Sounds Exciting Eric, and exactly my point on a few of the comments, they might just have shot themselves in the foot, with this.In many ways as are being discussed, had a few symptoms today comforting that things look less bleak than 24 hours ago, but thats a big point too isnt it, how easy it is to distress and convince many people ( patients too ) without a full understanding of the science. Something im sure they know damm well will help there slight under hand tactics to help win this argument, because thats what its all about now i feel. You know Eric in many ways from there point of view i think it always has been. So hard to admit so many negative doctors and psychiatrists could all have been so wrong. Now they are fighting for validation of there own belief systems, just like we had ( still have to ) do
what goes around comes around. Have to belive that.
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
More posts about contamination

Prof R poorly defending contamination

#
Gob987 [Moderator] 2 hours ago
If patient samples were contaminated at similar rates of between 67 and 85 percent and healthy control samples were contaminated at rates between 3 and 7 percent. Then how did the patient samples get contaminated more than the healthy control samples? Lombardi was a blinded study, I forget about Lo et al.
Flag
7 people liked this. Like Reply Reply
#

profvrr [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to Gob987
That is a question for which there is no answer, but which is
speculated upon in the two Coffin manuscripts published in
Retrovirology.
Flag
Like Reply Reply
#

Poptone_uk [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to profvrr
And that is a cop out answer. It's a simple question. How about a simple answer? How can a supposed contaminant choose to show up in such high numbers in ME/CFS patients and at only around 4% of healthy subjects? And it does this consistently. Surely a contaminant would show up in roughly equal numbers in both sets? Something smells rotten. So an answer then and not an avoiding of the simple question?
Flag
5 people liked this. Like Reply Reply
#

profvrr [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Poptone_uk
I'm not avoiding the question, these issues have been discussed
elsewhere and there is no need to repeat them. It's simply not true
that a contaminant would show up with equal frequency in controls and
specimens. For example: if controls and patient samples are collected
at different times, by different individuals, they can be contaminated
at different rates. Patient samples also tend to be handled more often
than controls from a blood bank, for example. In one of the
Retrovirology papers the frequency of XMRV positives was higher in
controls than in patient samples - and all were due to contamination.
There is no simple answer until everyone checks assiduously for
contamination. That's what these four papers are telling us.
Flag
LukeDukem liked this Like Reply Reply
#

Poptone_uk [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to profvrr
But in the great majority of studies that returned pretty much the same levels of positives in ME/CFS patients and in the health subjects they weren't just using PCR testing, and also they weren't set out on trying to prove a contamination theory (and that's all it still is), for whatever reasons and for whoever that suits. So, no, your answer doesn't satisfy me. I find it very interesting that you and so others are so hell bent on wanting the contamination theory to be proved right to the extent that you virtually ignore those that offer up totally plausible and provable explanations that this ISN'T contamination. So, just why is that, hmm?
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I wipe my virtual :mask::Sign Please::innocent1: with Retrovirology

:eek:

Sorry, tomorrow i will act normal again... but we say it like that in my country

“Our conclusion is quite simple: XMRV is not the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome,” says Professor Greg Towers, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow at University College London (UCL). “All our evidence shows that the sequences from the virus genome in cell culture have contaminated human chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer samples.
The Wellcome Trust is a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in human and animal health. We support the brightest minds in biomedical research and the medical humanities. Our breadth of support includes public engagement, education and the application of research to improve health. We are independent of both political and commercial interests.
Eric Klein, Cleveland Clinic 1 hour ago

We have reported XMRV integration in fresh frozen prostate tissue taken directly from patients at radical prostatectomy that has never been put in tissue culture and believe this is solid evidence of authentic human infection. See Dong et al PNAS 2007 and Kim et al. J Virol 2008
Hm?????
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
Prof R poorly defending contamination

#
Gob987 [Moderator] 2 hours ago
If patient samples were contaminated at similar rates of between 67 and 85 percent and healthy control samples were contaminated at rates between 3 and 7 percent. Then how did the patient samples get contaminated more than the healthy control samples? Lombardi was a blinded study, I forget about Lo et al.
Flag
7 people liked this. Like Reply Reply
#

profvrr [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to Gob987
That is a question for which there is no answer, but which is
speculated upon in the two Coffin manuscripts published in
Retrovirology.
Flag
Like Reply Reply
#

Poptone_uk [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to profvrr
And that is a cop out answer. It's a simple question. How about a simple answer? How can a supposed contaminant choose to show up in such high numbers in ME/CFS patients and at only around 4% of healthy subjects? And it does this consistently. Surely a contaminant would show up in roughly equal numbers in both sets? Something smells rotten. So an answer then and not an avoiding of the simple question?
Flag
5 people liked this. Like Reply Reply
#

profvrr [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Poptone_uk
I'm not avoiding the question, these issues have been discussed
elsewhere and there is no need to repeat them. It's simply not true
that a contaminant would show up with equal frequency in controls and
specimens. For example: if controls and patient samples are collected
at different times, by different individuals, they can be contaminated
at different rates. Patient samples also tend to be handled more often
than controls from a blood bank, for example. In one of the
Retrovirology papers the frequency of XMRV positives was higher in
controls than in patient samples - and all were due to contamination.
There is no simple answer until everyone checks assiduously for
contamination. That's what these four papers are telling us.
Flag
LukeDukem liked this Like Reply Reply
#

Poptone_uk [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to profvrr
But in the great majority of studies that returned pretty much the same levels of positives in ME/CFS patients and in the health subjects they weren't just using PCR testing, and also they weren't set out on trying to prove a contamination theory (and that's all it still is), for whatever reasons and for whoever that suits. So, no, your answer doesn't satisfy me. I find it very interesting that you and so others are so hell bent on wanting the contamination theory to be proved right to the extent that you virtually ignore those that offer up totally plausible and provable explanations that this ISN'T contamination. So, just why is that, hmm?
I will Answer that for him. Because their own belief systems will be so damaged when it turns out they could have been so wrong for so long about the condition ME/CFS
That their whole worldview ( including but not necessarly confined to there egos ) will ALL COME CRASHING DOWN

Ending in a situation of feelings of guilt (on thier part ) and the horrible horrible feeling that they really may have hurt so many patients for so long.

That it is too sickening for them to stomach, that indeed they are, and always have been, messengers of pain and suffering to so many.

Now isnt it easier to hope that they are right for themselves ?

Esther asked why are they behaving like this ? there you go Esther

So they dont have to face these guilty feelings, and reconcile them with the fact I AM A GOOD PERSON, say it three times like the wizard of oz, I AM A GOOD PERSON, I AM A GOOD PERSON, I AM A GOOD PERSON, click your heals and maybe it will come true

Only its getting harder and harder for them to belive it isnt it. desperation is setting in me thinks
 

Stone

Senior Member
Messages
371
Likes
12
Location
NC
"life and death are in the power of the tongue". When he said such and idiotic thing, when he knows that as a scientist every word of his might be taken as a proven thing by laymen, a thing that he himself contradicts in his blog (and his statements on the comments section in the blog), he might be indirectly causing other people to die (As Dr. Jason's study prove that ME/CFS patients tend to die much younger than helathy people; As cancer is a very dangerous disease; And as XMRV might be the cause of other deadly diseases). So I won't shoot him, but with his words he might have contibuted to build the gun that would be used to shoot patients to death with a "rumor retrovirus" killing them.
I agree, Omerbasket, especially since now, in light of the opinions of these 'scientists', some people with ME/CFS (and presumably a retrovirus) might just feel perfectly free to donate blood now that the 'retrovirus scare' is over. Not every person with our disease follows the developments in the medical research as closely as most of us on these forums do. Maybe there are a good number of people with our disease who only manage to catch snippets here and there about XMRV, and hearing this might very well feel it's safe for them to give blood, or to have unprotected sex or engage in some other activity that could place others at risk. It's entirely possible that someone's doctor happened to catch these articles but isn't following ALL the information on XMRV. Who knows what that doctor might tell his ME/CFS patients now?

As for how this could affect me as a patient, my first appointment with an Infectious Disease doctor is nine days away. I hope and pray he hasn't read this issue of Retrovirology because that will put me in a most unenviable position, trying to explain to him why my refutation of these researchers (who say XMRV is a dead end for ME/CFS causation) should hold any water at all. I can't imagine my doctor taking my word over the word of these researchers.
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
I agree, Omerbasket, especially since now, in light of the opinions of these 'scientists', some people with ME/CFS (and presumably a retrovirus) might just feel perfectly free to donate blood now that the 'retrovirus scare' is over. Not every person with our disease follows the developments in the medical research as closely as most of us on these forums do. Maybe there are a good number of people with our disease who only manage to catch snippets here and there about XMRV, and hearing this might very well feel it's safe for them to give blood, or to have unprotected sex or engage in some other activity that could place others at risk. It's entirely possible that someone's doctor happened to catch these articles but isn't following ALL the information on XMRV. Who knows what that doctor might tell his ME/CFS patients now?

As for how this could affect me as a patient, my first appointment with an Infectious Disease doctor is nine days away. I hope and pray he hasn't read this issue of Retrovirology because that will put me in a most unenviable position, trying to explain to him why my refutation of these researchers (who say XMRV is a dead end for ME/CFS causation) should hold any water at all. I can't imagine my doctor taking my word over the word of these researchers.
Exactly Right Stone, So they have there disinformation day dont they. and it affects your future, the media is certainly guilty of misinformation and crimes againt humanity as are some researchers, and goverment decision makers
 
C

Cloud

Guest
Everyone needs to tone down the crazy talk. No, Retrovirology is not a bad journal for publishing this, the articles today have valid points. We can not go attacking anyone who disagrees with WPI or Alter\Lo or publishes negative findings on XMRV. This is how science works, everything needs to be fully vetted, both sides need to be heard. Of course you will see scientist's egos flaring up on controversial topics, and sometimes one sides story gets more attention then the other that's just how science works. Its not a conspiracy, it's not people being evil, it's just how the system works.

The more CFS patients make character assassinations of people\journals\media outlets who disagree with the XMRV-CFS link the more CFS patients just look like a bunch of nut cases and the deeper the divide between the two sides becomes.
I have seen several of your posts with a similar theme feeling that some of us are upset over studies that threaten our bias regarding xmrv. That is not what is happening. Challenging every angle is great...we are not upset over scientific process that challenges our hopes. The problem is the UK bias. It has appeared obvious to me all along that the UK is defending some vested interest. I think many feel this way and are reacting with frustration over corruption rather than fear of some great hope (xmrv) being shot down. Of course over reacting to anything (including corruption) is not in our best interests. But the same is true of passively allowing these corrupt institutions to suppress information that may help end this suffering.

IMO, I don't see anyone over reacting in ways detrimental to our cause. What Free At Last said!
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
I'd really like to get a retrovirologist on board who can give us the pro's and con's of both sides. We have two camps saying the opposite things...I don't think either side is making it up - I think both sides firmly believe they are right. It's too bad we can't have a debate ....Anyone know any retrovirologists who want to talk?
retrovirology's reputation as a legit journal is being questioned ever since multiple XMRV- studies were posted in their journal and no XMRV+ were ever posted there. They have become the dumping ground for all -XMRV studies mostly done by british doctors and psychologists.

I don't think they can give you a balanced pro's and con's of both sides because if they are disproven wrong by XMRV+, their journal will crash and burn for choosing the wrong side. You see, they(retrovirology) choose only one side(XMRV-) in this fight by publishing only XMRV-. Ops!