Enough XMRV

[Noah_Scape]

It was surely worthy of a 2nd look, but now that the XMRV theory of CFS / CFIDS has been shown to be false, we might consider removing the XMRV forums here.

I just want to add "I told you so" - my first reaction to the WPI announcement of XMRV in CFS patients was that it was concocted, fabricated.

Why? - they immediately cited "drugs that are allready approved could treat XMRV affected patients", and therefore it seemed tailored to enhance pharmaGiant drug sales.

I suppose we will never know if the original results were fabricated or not, but it certainly fit a pattern of pharmaGiant collusion with medical researchers... and if you want to defend medical researchers then there is a lot of bad history to get around [i.e. "Dr. Scott Reuban fabricated Vioxx studies, found guilty of fraud" - google it!].

If Fibros and CFS patients are not enraged at medical science, they should be. 20 years ago they told me to "hang in there, they are discovering new things all the time, something will come along to help you", and now in 2011 I have no definitive diagnosis, no sympathy from my Doctor or family or friends, my symptoms are progressively worsening.

Medical research is limited by it's underlying goal of profitability.

 

[Andrew]

I don't think the forums should be removed, but perhaps renamed to HGRV. It's just to early to dismiss the broader concept.

 

[ukxmrv]

There's still going to be lots of news on HGRV's and who knows - xmrv may have some life to run in the saga.

Far too early to get rid of the threads.

You could have written your anti-Pharma comments about HIV/AIDS as well. Just substitute the virus name.

There's no proof that anything has been concocted or fabricated apart from Silverman's error and that's nothing to do with the WPI.

If you don't want to talk about HGRV's then there's no reason for you to have to look at these threads. Just leave them for the others who think that they are important.

 

[Dreambirdie]

Noah_Scape: You are obviously very new to this forum, with just 28 posts.

Please be aware that at least half the people here are still very interested in the future of HGRV's.
Science on this will continue, whether you approve of it or not. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[markmc20001]

It was surely worthy of a 2nd look, but now that the XMRV theory of CFS / CFIDS has been shown to be false, we might consider removing the XMRV forums here.

I just want to add "I told you so" - my first reaction to the WPI announcement of XMRV in CFS patients was that it was concocted, fabricated.

Why? - they immediately cited "drugs that are allready approved could treat XMRV affected patients", and therefore it seemed tailored to enhance pharmaGiant drug sales.

I suppose we will never know if the original results were fabricated or not, but it certainly fit a pattern of pharmaGiant collusion with medical researchers... and if you want to defend medical researchers then there is a lot of bad history to get around [i.e. "Dr. Scott Reuban fabricated Vioxx studies, found guilty of fraud" - google it!].

If Fibros and CFS patients are not enraged at medical science, they should be. 20 years ago they told me to "hang in there, they are discovering new things all the time, something will come along to help you", and now in 2011 I have no definitive diagnosis, no sympathy from my Doctor or family or friends, my symptoms are progressively worsening.

Medical research is limited by it's underlying goal of profitability.

Welcome to the forum Noah_scape!

 

[Guido den Broeder]

There is still the possibility that XMRV is present in the general population, normally innocent and not in the bloodstream, but a factor in perpetuating certain disease processes.

 

[Bob]

Welcome to the forum Noah_scape!

Odd that someone should join the forum, only to then ask for half of it to be shut down!

 

[Lee]

ukxmrv:

"There's no proof that anything has been concocted or fabricated apart from Silverman's error and that's nothing to do with the WPI."

It is simply not true that this has nothing to do with the WPI. DNA samples were prepared fro PBMCs at the WPI. The DNA samples were sent to Silverman from the WPI. In the Supplementary materials of his retraction, Peterson details the extraordinary care he took to prevent contamination of those samples, in the paragraph beginning:

"In early 2009 we received PBMC DNA samples from CFS patients and healthy controls from the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), Reno, Nevada. The PBMC DNA samples were taken directly to a clean room upon arrival and stored in a -20oC freezer in the same room."

Nowhere in that retraction does he specifically address the issue of where the contamination occurred. He does give details making it clear to anyone skilled in doing PCR that is is extraordinarily unlikely that the contamination occurred in his lab.

Taken together, this means that the contamination occurred either at WPI or at Silverman's lab, and it is unlikely that it occurred in Silverman's lab.

6 of 15 patient samples were contaminated with VP62 plasmid. None of the control samples were contaminated with PV62 plasmid. Silverman got from Science an extremely unusual partial retraction, and therefore removed his contribution from the paper - effectively disassociating himself and his lab from the paper's analysis.

These are the known facts. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Bob]

Silverman got from Science an extremely unusual partial retraction, and therefore removed his contribution from the paper - effectively disassociating himself and his lab from the paper's analysis.

These are the known facts. Draw your own conclusions.

The partial retraction was agreed upon, and requested by, all of the authors.

 

[Guido den Broeder]

Which would bring us back to the question that I've asked many times before: why are patient samples so much easier to contaminate than control samples?

 

[ChuckG]

Then don't visit XMRV forums.

It was surely worthy of a 2nd look, but now that the XMRV theory of CFS / CFIDS has been shown to be false, we might consider removing the XMRV forums here.

Or you could delete the bookmark(s) to forums/blogs/web sites that include the term "XMRV"!

 

[Lee]

"The partial retraction was agreed upon, and requested by, all of the authors."

Actually, a full retraction was requested by Science, some time back, and JM resisted it. All the authors agreed to the retraction of Silverman's data - I would love to have been a fly on THAT wall. Bottom line is, Silverman and his lab no longer have any data associated with that paper, but the other authors still do.

"Which would bring us back to the question that I've asked many times before: why are patient samples so much easier to contaminate than control samples? "
That is the question, isn't it. Too bad JM and Ruscetti didn't tell us what they actually did, and refused to release their samples and data to Science for review, so we could get that question answered.

 

[ixchelkali]

It was surely worthy of a 2nd look, but now that the XMRV theory of CFS / CFIDS has been shown to be false, we might consider removing the XMRV forums here.

Patience, Grasshopper. There's at least one more major study to be reported, and it's clear that people aren't through discussing the topic. If you're finished discussing the topic and are no longer interested, just skip reading those forums. Which could be another good reason for NOT removing the XMRV forums: segregating them into a separate forum will make it easier for you to avoid the threads you're not interested in.

I think we'll know it's time to delete (or archive) the XMRV forums when people are no longer posting to threads there.

 

[currer]

I think we'll see plenty of XMRV/HGRV research in future.

There were government grant-funded research studies approved last year and they are unlikely to be cancelled.

 

[*GG*]

If Fibros and CFS patients are not enraged at medical science, they should be. 20 years ago they told me to "hang in there, they are discovering new things all the time, something will come along to help you", and now in 2011 I have no definitive diagnosis, no sympathy from my Doctor or family or friends, my symptoms are progressively worsening.
QUOTE]

So you have been sick for 20 years and never had a diagnosis?

GG

PS I don't want sympathy, empathy perhaps, but not sympathy. Hope you get a handle on your symptoms!

 

[Guido den Broeder]

"Which would bring us back to the question that I've asked many times before: why are patient samples so much easier to contaminate than control samples? "
That is the question, isn't it. Too bad JM and Ruscetti didn't tell us what they actually did, and refused to release their samples and data to Science for review, so we could get that question answered.

Let's assume for a moment, that they did treat patient and control samples in the same way, and ask the question again: why are patient samples so much easier to contaminate than control samples?

What if there is a logical answer to that question that does not involve errors?

 

[ukxmrv]

Taken together, this means that the contamination occurred either at WPI or at Silverman's lab, and it is unlikely that it occurred in Silverman's lab.

These are the known facts. Draw your own conclusions.

These are not known facts just your theories. The contamination occurred somewhere that is all we know. Unlikely is just your opinion. Please try and stop making these assumptions and then pretending they are facts.

Silverman has done the retraction. He created VP62.

It is not proved to have anything to do with the WPI -that's the fact.

 

[Lee]

Bob and ukxmrv:
Thank you so much for removing from what I said the 4 paragraphs describing the facts, in your quotes back to me telling me these aren't facts.

 

[FancyMyBlood]

Let's assume for a moment, that they did treat patient and control samples in the same way, and ask the question again: why are patient samples so much easier to contaminate than control samples?

What if there is a logical answer to that question that does not involve errors?

Guido, I believe the only logical answer is that they must have handled the samples differently. There is no reason to assume aything, since they failed to replicate their own findings under real blinded conditions.

If we follow your assumption, we immediately get another complicated puzzle; why do they fail to replicate their initial results using a real blinded method? The only plausible answer is that the initial samples weren't properly blinded in the first place.

 

[ukxmrv]

Sorry Lee,

I don't get you. I am genuinely trying to engage in this discussion and I believe you are as well.

Please say it again in the way a sick, disabled adult with brain fog, a fever due to a sinus infection (but still a brain) might understand.