This disorder belongs firmly in the province of immunologists in my opinion.
I think something is priming the immune system to behave abnormally. And I think that environmental factors (not genetic) are the main causative agents in this.
Host response leds us back into the tender hands of the psychiatric brigade. At least in the UK.
They claim that their methods can change the host response
We're back also to why does the host respond that way (i.e. different to "normal" people) and all the unresolved childhood trauma
I think that once we've got a consistent picture, we're in a much stronger position to fend off psychiatry.
The one thing that did impress me was that there was an enormous amount of immunoreactivity that appeared to be non-specific in these individuals, so that at a time when people were saying this was a psychosomatic disorder I said "two thirds to three quarters of all the people we have tested have polyclonal B cells - they are sick. We don't know why, but they're sick"
Good summary, Andrew. I've only watched half the video but wanted to comment on what i saw that addresses some of your nagging question:Here's what I got.
...
I have one nagging question, though. And I'm not faulting the study in saying this. I think their design had a specific goal, and it accomplished it. But my question remains. In the monkey experiments the monkeys' immune systems were able to clear their blood of XMRV. But after receiving a peptide injection (presumably to simulate an invasion by infectious agents), the XMRV reappeared in the blood. What I don't remember is what they found in regard to antibodies. Still, this does suggest that one entertain the possibility that an infectious agent can be present, but not in the blood.
Host response leds us back into the tender hands of the psychiatric brigade. At least in the UK.
They claim that their methods can change the host response
We're back also to why does the host respond that way (i.e. different to "normal" people) and all the unresolved childhood trauma
Here's what I got.
1. The only purpose of the study was to see if the Mikovitz and Alter/Lo findings could be replicated. It was not to explore new ground.
2. The conclusion was that the original Mikovits and Alter/Lo studies were underpowered and this led to incorrect conclusions. This new study demonstrates that, and all participants (including Mikovits) agree.
3. Because of the publicity of the original Science study, more good scientists have become involved, and are staying involved.
4. The focus is changing away from finding a single infectious cause, but instead entertaining the possiblitiy that this could be caused by more than on infectious agent, and that immune problems keep the body from dealing with it.
5. Lipkin made a very strong point. Government funding can be influenced by noise made by the public and he thinks that now is a time when it's important for us to do this. He also acknowledged how difficult this is for chronically ill people to do, but he urges us to do what we can.
The one thing that did impress me was that there was an enormous amount of immunoreactivity that appeared to be non-specific in these individuals, so that at a time when people were saying this was a psychosomatic disorder I said "two thirds to three quarters of all the people we have tested have polyclonal B cells - they are sick. We don't know why, but they're sick"
some reports suggest a deleterious role for polyclonal activation, arguing that it could potentially turn on anti-self-responses and lead to autoimmune manifestations during chronic infections.
It's not obvious, and actually it's a bit of both. As I understand it, they sequence everything in the blood, human or otherwise. I think in practice they have ways to hook out most of the human DNA first, which cuts out of a lot of the work, and then look at what's left. Much will be known viruses, bacteria, protozoans etc. But, if I remember a previous talk by Lipkin correctly, even more will be unknown viruses etc, where they can tell from the gene structure it's a virus or whatever, but it doesn't match any known virus.I have a question about the deep sequencing that Ian Lipkin says they will be doing in the CFI-sponsored study he's working on. What will they be deep sequencing? Every pathogen they find in the blood? The genomes of the patients?
It's not obvious, and actually it's a bit of both. As I understand it, they sequence everything in the blood, human or otherwise. I think in practice they have ways to hook out most of the human DNA first, which cuts out of a lot of the work, and then look at what's left. Much will be known viruses, bacteria, protozoans etc. But, if I remember a previous talk by Lipkin correctly, even more will be unknown viruses etc, where they can tell from the gene structure it's a virus or whatever, but it doesn't match any known virus.
These unknown viruses etc will generally be present in much smaller quantities than common ones, which is why they are unknown (also, because many of them are impossible to culture in the lab, but deep sequencing doesn't rely on culturing).
Hope this helps rather than confuses.
Lipkin talked a lot about abnormal host responses, and said some very interesting things. He pointed out how well established it was in humans - but how most of the research on abnormal host response has been done on animals, mostly mammals. I know it's been found in reptiles too.Host response leds us back into the tender hands of the psychiatric brigade. At least in the UK.
They claim that their methods can change the host response
We're back also to why does the host respond that way (i.e. different to "normal" people) and all the unresolved childhood trauma
You're right, he did say (or Mady Hornig, perhaps) they were going to look at RNA to see how the genome is operating.I think he also said they were looking at RNA, which shows (I think) how each patient's genome is operating - I think it shows whether our bodies are doing weird stuff, basically (spot the non-bioscientist).
Hope someone will correct me if I'm talking rubbish...