German study finds xmrv

leaves

Senior Member
Messages
1,193
Likes
32
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

Senior Member
Messages
246
Likes
467
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
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.
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

Senior Member
Messages
246
Likes
467
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,387
Likes
561
Location
Dorset
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
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,193
Likes
32
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
 

bel canto

Senior Member
Messages
246
Likes
467
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

Senior Member
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.
 

MEKoan

Senior Member
Messages
2,630
Likes
123
well we don't know what came first; immunodepression or xmrv
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

Senior Member
Messages
3,466
Likes
2,509
Location
Seattle
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.
It might not be transmissible by air -- it could be easily killed by oxygen.

???
 

Impish

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,193
Likes
32
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!
:) you are right, but im just fed up with all these opportunists!! I want THE real thing..,