German study finds xmrv

leaves

leaves

Senior Member
#22
Messages
1,193
Likes
33
If it is really that infectuous than thus must imply that most people can resist infection. Think about it. If you infect 4% with a virus transmissible through air than in no time everyone will have it. But we don't see this. So I don't like this news because it suggests that we as cfs ers have some special characteristics that make us vulnerable for infection.
 
bel canto

bel canto

Senior Member
#23
Messages
246
Likes
468
the suggestion in the paper is that immunocompromised patients may be susceptible - but that raises the question of what causes the immunosuppresion to begin with, as most of us were healthy at some point
 
R

Robin

Guest
#25
subtr4ct said:
Well, maybe -- reference 15 seems to imply that HIV can be found in the respiratory tract, even though it is not especially (at all?) transmittable through the air. The paper seems to raise the possibility, though, so even if airborne transmission isn't a risk, this will hopefully at least light a fire under the research.
Click to expand...
They look at patterns of transmission, I think. For example, HIV is present in saliva, semen and vaginal fluids but it's not transmissible through contact with these fluids or droplets unless there is some type of blood contact (open sore in mouth during oral sex, for example.) If you could get HIV through kissing it would be much more prevalent like EBV which has a prevalence as high as 95%. Respiratory viruses that are spread through coughing or sneezing like measles would have a much higher infection rate than 1-4% estimated for XMRV. Here's an interesting case study of a single case of measles spreading through a community. 32/50 unvaccinated people contracted it within six weeks of initial exposure (there were 2 vaccine failures) -- that's a transmission rate of 64%.

So, right off the bat I suspect that they will rule out transmission from saliva and sputum.

ETA: oops, leaves made my point while I was still typing. ;)
 
bel canto

bel canto

Senior Member
#26
Messages
246
Likes
468
the significant different (3% vs. 10%) rates seen in immunocomp. patients vs. those who were sick with RTI, but not immunocomp. does seem to suggest they are more susceptible - so the at least some of the nons are resisting infection
 
Jenny

Jenny

Senior Member
#28
Messages
1,388
Likes
566
Location
Dorset
bel canto said:
the suggestion in the paper is that immunocompromised patients may be susceptible - but that raises the question of what causes the immunosuppresion to begin with, as most of us were healthy at some point
Click to expand...
The immunosuppressed group in this study had had organ or bone marrow transplants, so were presumably on immuno-suppressant drugs. This might be quite different from other ways in which the immune system might be compromised.

I've been wondering about whether I could infect my husband as he had a liver transplant 2 years ago, is on immunosuppressant drugs, and has Hep C. But he's fighting fit, as is everyone else I've had intimate contact with since I've been ill as far as I know.

Jenny
 
leaves

leaves

Senior Member
#29
Messages
1,193
Likes
33
bel canto said:
the significant different (3% vs. 10%) rates seen in immunocomp. patients vs. those who were sick with RTI, but not immunocomp. does seem to suggest they are more susceptible - so the at least some of the nons are resisting infection[/QUOTE

well we don't know what came first; immunodepression or xmrv
Click to expand...
 
bel canto

bel canto

Senior Member
#31
Messages
246
Likes
468
a big leap would be to then wonder if a 10% exposure, but 3% infected would suggest a 30% rate of infection when exposed. Of course if the immunocompromised still can have resistance to infection, then the exposure rate could be much high
 
subtr4ct

subtr4ct

Senior Member
#32
Messages
112
Likes
0
THe group (#3) that showed an XMRV infection rate greater than an assumed baseline of 3-4% was not a typical bunch of people: "From group 3, a total of 161 BAL and tracheal secretion samples were collected from patients with severe RTI and immunosuppression as a result of solid organ or bone marrow transplantation". Transplants seem like they would likely transmit XMRV. Also, I'm going to guess that people who had transplant are also more likely to have received blood transfusions along the way.
 
M

MEKoan

Senior Member
#36
Messages
2,630
Likes
124
leaves said:
well we don't know what came first; immunodepression or xmrv
Click to expand...
Yeah! But, even if XMRV is an opportunist, it could still be a huge diagnostic marker, a target for treatment and a window into the workings of ME/CFS.

Very exciting!
 
dannybex

dannybex

Senior Member
#37
Messages
3,519
Likes
2,640
Location
Seattle
leaves said:
If it is really that infectuous than thus must imply that most people can resist infection. Think about it. If you infect 4% with a virus transmissible through air than in no time everyone will have it. But we don't see this. So I don't like this news because it suggests that we as cfs ers have some special characteristics that make us vulnerable for infection.
Click to expand...
It might not be transmissible by air -- it could be easily killed by oxygen.

???
 
I

Impish

Senior Member
#38
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
Victoria, BC
They specifically say that they followed the methods outlined in earlier papers (1,12) when using PCR to find XMRV. I don't remember seeing anything like that in the studies that couldn't find XMRV. I am too busy to go look at those papers to see if their methods are similar to those published by WPI
 
leaves

leaves

Senior Member
#39
Messages
1,193
Likes
33
Koan said:
Yeah! But, even if XMRV is an opportunist, it could still be a huge diagnostic marker, a target for treatment and a window into the workings of ME/CFS.

Very exciting!
Click to expand...
:) you are right, but im just fed up with all these opportunists!! I want THE real thing..,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.