German study finds xmrv

Nina

Senior Member
Messages
222
Likes
21
Are the authors of the negative studies going to accuse the Germans of contamination or other sloppiness? And then get in their precision BMWs to drive home?
Lol, I like the picture you have of Germans ;)

I don't think they would get accused of being sloppy, because they aren't trying to establish a connection between XMRV and CFS! After all, these people were REALLY ill. *irony mode off*
 

rebecca1995

Apple, anyone?
Messages
380
Likes
244
Location
Northeastern US
I should have said it's mixed news--good in that someone besides WPI finally found it outside of prostrate cancer. Good that blood isn't the only game in town, good that so few healthy controls tested positive. It's unsettling, though, that the study raises so many issues and questions (as others have noted).
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
I should have said it's mixed news--good in that someone besides WPI finally found it outside of prostrate cancer. Good that blood isn't the only game in town, good that so few healthy controls tested positive. It's unsettling, though, that the study raises so many issues and questions (as others have noted).
I'll add another "good". It's good that the immunocompromised group (#3) was not infected at rates similar to those found by WPI in CFS patients. By no means conclusive, but this new study seems inconsistent with the notion that immunocompromised people would all have 67% to 98% infection rates. So this further implies that the association found by WPI is more consistent with XMRV => CFS than it is with CFS => XMRV.
 

Impish

Senior Member
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
Victoria, BC
The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...
 

leaves

Senior Member
Messages
1,193
Likes
32
I'll add another "good". It's good that the immunocompromised group (#3) was not infected at rates similar to those found by WPI in CFS patients. By no means conclusive, but seems inconsistent with the notion that immunocompromised people would all have 67% to 98% infection rates. So implies that the association found by WPI is more consistent with XMRV => CFS than it is with CFS => XMRV.
well seems so but we can't compare these conclusions as they used different methods: possible that wpi tests were more sensitive?
Although the same percentge positive in the control group does suggest your interpretation is correct
 

bel canto

Senior Member
Messages
246
Likes
468
that's a big leap, impish - there may be some other factor predisposing cfs patients to infection

however, this definitely should get many people's attention
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...
Your analysis implicitly assumes that the CFS ==> XMRV infection; this is not at all established, and looks less likely all the time (see post #64 above).
 

Otis

Señor Mumbler
Messages
1,117
Likes
119
Location
USA
sorry - i think it means that this has been released, but not yet in a publication - probably in print process
Are the authors of the negative studies going to accuse the Germans of contamination or other sloppiness? And then get in their precision BMWs to drive home? I have never uttered the words "in your face" before. But, you know, in your FACE. I am certain my whole family is infected already, but I worry about the kids in my son's kindergarten...

I had a feeling the CDC study was delayed because the gov't is, like, ZOMG, what are we going to do - this looks like evidence that I may be right.
No doubt the naysayers will find something to pick on, kicking up some kind of dust cloud to obscure the true implications.

Rrrr, looks like a few more questions for the good Dr. Coffin arise here.

Otis
 

Impish

Senior Member
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
Victoria, BC
Your analysis implicitly assumes that the CFS ==> XMRV infection; this is not at all established, and looks less likely all the time (see post #64 above).
I actually wasn't assuming that CFS causes XMRV infection. I was more looking at it from a worse case scenario. If you were a total sceptic you and were absolutely convinced that XMRV infection results from having CFS and not the other way you still can't say (Wessley, et al) that it is actually related to psychology. If a CFS patients immune system is worse than someone's who is on immune surpressing drugs, CBT is not likely to help them. I don't see large programs offering CBT to people with transplants in order to help their symptoms. You would be laughed at.

Given the fact that viruses in the same family as XMRV (FeLV) cause immune surpression I think it is looking more likely that XMRV is the root cause.

I think we might be looking at XMRV causes immune disfunction in a host. Host gets lots of viruses (which threw people off for years as they thought these viruses might be the cause since they were more visible). Host gets very sick.

If this is the scenario the obvious question is why do some people fight off XMRV and not others? Some sort of genetic factor like the one identified in some people that allows them to not get AIDS even when exposed to HIV?
 

jewel

Senior Member
Messages
195
Likes
9
I really am concerned about transmission, and I hope that more studies come out "pronto" regarding ease/difficulty and modes of transmission. Of course, I also don't know if I am xmrv+. (Maybe I need to get tested first, then worry.) I have worked in a building where there are many people with cancer, many with autoimmune illnesses, and some with cfs type symptoms...
 

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
leaves - in this study, it appear immunodepression was first, as these are transplant patients, etc.
Well, I think it's obviously more likely that immunosuppressed people would have XMRV than people without suprression of the immune system - As it's probably more likely that immunosuppressed people would catch a lot of other bacteria's and viruses... But I don't think that it implies that XMRV is an opportunistic infection in ME/CFS... I mean, immunosupressed people that had the bacteria that causes tuberculosis i n their body before getting immunosupressors have higher chance of getting sick with tuberculosis... Does it say that the tuberculosis bacteria is an opportunistic infection in those who have tuberculosis? Well, it might be opportunistic, but it is the bacteria that causes their tuberculosis.

We might have caught XMRV for various of reasons (for exmple: Genetics or perhaps just bad luck). The immunosupressed people probably caught it more than those who are not on immunosupressors, since, well, their immune system is supressed and they might catch influenza more often too. But it doesn't say that our immune system was supressed before, and than we got XMRV, and that XMRV didn't cause our illnesses. And if the WPI's numbers of about 98% ME/CFS patients that has XMRV are even somewhat close to be correct, and the precentage of healthy people (3.7%) that have it is also somewhat close to be correct, I think it's very very unlikely that XMRV is just an opportunistic infection in people with ME/CFS - Because as you can see people with suppressed immune system get XMRV probably three times more than people with a normal immune system - but not 26.49 more times (which is the proportion between 98 and 3.7).

Am I wrong here people?
 

subtr4ct

Senior Member
Messages
112
Likes
0
Impish: I see your point -- unlikely to be a strictly psychological/psychiatric condition. Good point
 

Impish

Senior Member
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
Victoria, BC
I think you are right. The logic holds. It makes me feel very hopeful for my sister and the others here on the forum. After all of the false hope over the last 25 years I am still having trouble believing it somewhat...
 

serenity

Senior Member
Messages
571
Likes
9
Location
Austin
i think it's here Impish, i think we can believe it.
we are lucky, to have what seems to be going to be an answer in our lifetime.
 

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...
I think you might very well be wrong here. It might just mean that some of these 2-3% of healthy people with XMRV, and 10% of immunsuppressed people with XMRV, might get ME/CFS because of their XMRV (and than the number of ME/CFS patients with XMRV would be 100% - and it might be that it's just 98% in the WPI's study because their methods might not be able to find XMRV whenever it's there, and/or because the 2% didn't have ME/CFS).
 

bel canto

Senior Member
Messages
246
Likes
468
Well, I think it's obviously more likely that immunosuppressed people would have XMRV than people without suprression of the immune system - As it's probably more likely that immunosuppressed people would catch a lot of other bacteria's and viruses... But I don't think that it implies that XMRV is an opportunistic infection in ME/CFS... I mean, immunosupressed people that had the bacteria that causes tuberculosis i n their body before getting immunosupressors have higher chance of getting sick with tuberculosis... Does it say that the tuberculosis bacteria is an opportunistic infection in those who have tuberculosis? Well, it might be opportunistic, but it is the bacteria that causes their tuberculosis.

We might have caught XMRV for various of reasons (for exmple: Genetics or perhaps just bad luck). The immunosupressed people probably caught it more than those who are not on immunosupressors, since, well, their immune system is supressed and they might catch influenza more often too. But it doesn't say that our immune system was supressed before, and than we got XMRV, and that XMRV didn't cause our illnesses. And if the WPI's numbers of about 98% ME/CFS patients that has XMRV are even somewhat close to be correct, and the precentage of healthy people (3.7%) that have it is also somewhat close to be correct, I think it's very very unlikely that XMRV is just an opportunistic infection in people with ME/CFS - Because as you can see people with suppressed immune system get XMRV probably three times more than people with a normal immune system - but not 26.49 more times (which is the proportion between 98 and 3.7).

Am I wrong here people?
This study makes no direct reference to cfs - it does say if you have rti, you are 50% more likely to have xmrv - but still at a low number.

You can't really assume anything about cfs/xmrv from this study. But your point is a good one - how could the correlation with cfs be that high, and so much lower in immunocompromised patients if xmrv is just opportunistic in crs?
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Likes
19,642
So the way I got sick, 18 months ago doesn't sound so improbable huh?

I am a registered nurse, worked with cancer patient, and while starting an IV, I received some droplets of saliva straight into my mouth. Go figure...