• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

Mikovits interview states the FDA will confirm WPI findings in a Sept publication

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
46
I don't think that the WPI is saying "XMRV variants" in the sense of variants of "XMRV vp62" (the Silverman/Abbott clone). I have asked directly a scientist I know who is working with Dr. Mikovits and she said that WPI's work covers all human gammaretroviruses including "XMRV and its variants" and that those variants include all known human MLV-related viruses. That is what was licensed by WPI to VIPdx according to her as well.
A variant of XMRV means any 'strain' of XMRV; the nomenclature is sometimes used a bit differently but essentially any variant of XMRV is still identified as XMRV (hence the term 'variant'). There is no one 'standard' XMRV in that sense; all genotypes of XMRV are considered variants (including VP62). However, a gammaretrovirus that is not XMRV, such as a polytropic MLV, cannot be considered a variant of XMRV by any definition.

My friend reported that Alter/Lo found human MLV-related viruses, not "just XMRV vp62". That means that there has to be a potential for more than two different types of retroviruses. The most important point you make is that Switzer didn't find any human MLV-related viruses. Therefore, the CDC's test couldn't find even one type of XMRV let alone any other human MLV-related viruses. This means that the WPI will be completely vindicated and that the problem will be bigger and more complex than anyone has thought about.
Again, this report is not clear to me. The WPI Science study for instance did not isolate any VP62 strain from its cohort, but instead found a few different strains of XMRV. These are still considered the same virus. If the Alter/Lo study found other strains of XMRV, then we are still only talking about one basic human gammaretrovirus. But if they found another one that is different enough from XMRV that it can be considered a separate retrovirus, then they may indeed have discovered a new human MLV-related virus. The infamous slide from Alter's leaked presentation stated that:

XMRV and related MLVs are in the donor supply with an early prevalence estimate of 3%‐7%.
Note that this finding was in the donor supply, not CFS patients (so far as we know). "Related MLVs" presumably include things like polytropic MLVs.. the key question will be whether these are truly human retroviruses, whether they have been previously identified, and (in any case) what they are doing in the blood supply. Another question is whether they could be associated with human disease, e.g. whether they too are found in CFS patients in higher percentages than healthy donors. But the first thing, as I said, would be to check to see if the Alter paper matches the leaked Alter presentation on this issue.

I wonder if this hopefully imminent PNAS Lo/Alter paper will discuss XMRV clades?
If they isolated and sequenced virus and found new viral strains or even new human retroviruses, I think that they would... either in this paper or in an addendum to follow.
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
Likes
4,789
It was hardly ignored...They spent two years on it.....Should they have spent more money on it? Perhaps..but let's not rewrite history. They spent about two years and reportedly several million dollars looking for it. Where was the NIH when they were actually devoting some resources to it? They were denying De Freitas' grants!
Check.
That happened about 7 years after the DeFreitas finding.
Sorry, Cort, I respectfully disagree. The scandal came 7 years later, but Walter Gunn was wondering who the other people on the project were at the time the organization was reporting a dozen or more FTEs, (full-time equivalents).

Everyone wants to make the CDC the fall guy but the NIH is equally responsible if not more so - they are the premier research facility in the land; their budget is much higher than the CDC's and they are a pure research group while the CDC is not. Given that they should be spending 3 or 4 times as much on CFS as the CDC but they're spending the same amount; eg you could argue they are hurting us more. Their willingness to turn away from CFS actually has had worse consequences than the CDC's doing so...
Agreed. A group inside the CDC, and the group at NIH formed an 'invisible college' devoted to denying an infectious agent. Hillary Johnson wrote more about the CDC group because she had more access to that group. Straus went years without allowing an interview. He also went to a meeting with potential investors in possible Wistar patents and demolished any hope there might be a profit at the end. Coupled with the complete blockcade on any grants which might benefit that organization this tightened the screws on both DeFreitas and Koprowski. Straus also violated the ethics of anonymous peer review by openly badmouthing research that had never been published or made available to him outside of peer review.

One problem is that CDC has been a convenient label. Another problem is that the same deniers have remained in control of CFS research there. While NIAID has been outside the new research loop, (a legacy of Straus?) other parts of NIH have changed.

I have more to say about the history, but right now I'm looking for a much brighter tomorrow, literally tomorrow! :victory:
 
Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
Yea, the NIH, CDC, NHS, NICE, MRC, and plenty of other countries. But the real damage has been caused by Wessely and chums here, and the CDC there.

The CDC are meant to control disease, they did not, they were also in charge of the CFS program that defines the disease. It was they who have fraudulently invented "serious" research into the disease. Their inability to separate the disease from the jolly funny prejudices, has most likely resulted in a pandemic, that they are tasked with preventing and controlling. The CDC either needs to be shut down and a new group set up, or it needs a complete overhaul. We have a term in the UK, that I don't particularly like because I feel it describes society rather than an individual organisations, 'institutional racism'. Well the CDC is suffering from institutional prejudice. And don't forget their latest magic trick, not detecting XMRV deliberately. We own them our outrage, not are sympathy.
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Likes
29
Clades - a geographical taxonomy thing

Which might help to explain the zero/zero studies (in addition to assay problems). I am borrowing from AIDS terminology, so see here:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-hiv-clades.htm

Long story short, XMRV here is not likely to be the same as XMRV there; maybe up to 30% difference genetically if it is like AIDS. Clades get names. Like XMRV group 1, Incline Village Clade A. Or, XMRV group 4, London Clade A-2 (Wessely-Chalder subset)

Here is an interesting research paper on genes following geography and HTLV clades, guess who wrote it?

http://www.retrovirology.com/content/6/1/9

Hi Levi -

Is a Clade = a variant?

Please clarify for us non-scientists - thanks!
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
46
A clade is basically a branch on a genetic family tree. In evolutionary biology, they use a system called cladistics to analyze the relationships between species. Basically, using cladistic analysis on, say, genetic characteristics shared by retroviruses, one can construct a family tree that shows the degree of relationship between various retroviruses. Retroviruses that are very closely related will be bunched together on the same branch (or 'clade') of the family tree. All gammaretroviruses are on a large branch (in a large clade) separate from other retroviruses, and this branch in turn breaks off to form smaller and smaller branches, one of which contains all the MLVs, and one smaller branch from there would consist of XMRV and its variants.

A good cladistic analysis will thus accurately show how closely related one virus is relative to another based on the similarity of certain genetic markers chosen by the scientists. This can give you info about the evolutionary relationships of the various viruses (which evolved from which, etc). Usually you expect the most closely related viral strains to be from the same geographic location, as they must share a common ancestor.

[Even with the help of genetics, taxonomy such as this is often contentious; a cladistic analysis is only as reliable as the 'shared, derived characteristics' chosen for the analysis. The choice of gene or genes makes a big difference; the assumption is that changes in the gene(s) you pick will accurately reflect evolutionary change and relationships between species, but sometimes they don't or sometimes two different scientists using different genes or other characteristics will wind up with family trees that look different! Without the help of genes it's even worse; last time I checked (just before I got sick!) cladistic analyses of bird evolution often had them evolving directly from dinosaurs, and had dinosaurs in a distinct clade from reptiles, while non-cladistic taxonomy sometimes had birds evolving from lizards, but still considered dinosaurs as reptiles... and so on.]

[Wow, I just bored the crap out of you, didn't I? :D]
 

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
Likes
4,045
Not too surprisingly, the term "clade" was coined in 1958 from the Greek word "klados," meaning "branch." Charts depicting clades are called, yes, "cladograms."
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
Likes
4,789
A clade is basically a branch on a genetic family tree. In evolutionary biology, they use a system called cladistics to analyze the relationships between species. Basically, using cladistic analysis on, say, genetic characteristics shared by retroviruses, one can construct a family tree that shows the degree of relationship between various retroviruses. Retroviruses that are very closely related will be bunched together on the same branch (or 'clade') of the family tree. All gammaretroviruses are on a large branch (in a large clade) separate from other retroviruses, and this branch in turn breaks off to form smaller and smaller branches, one of which contains all the MLVs, and one smaller branch from there would consist of XMRV and its variants.

A good cladistic analysis will thus accurately show how closely related one virus is relative to another based on the similarity of certain genetic markers chosen by the scientists. This can give you info about the evolutionary relationships of the various viruses (which evolved from which, etc). Usually you expect the most closely related viral strains to be from the same geographic location, as they must share a common ancestor.

[Even with the help of genetics, taxonomy such as this is often contentious; a cladistic analysis is only as reliable as the 'shared, derived characteristics' chosen for the analysis. The choice of gene or genes makes a big difference; the assumption is that changes in the gene(s) you pick will accurately reflect evolutionary change and relationships between species, but sometimes they don't or sometimes two different scientists using different genes or other characteristics will wind up with family trees that look different! Without the help of genes it's even worse; last time I checked (just before I got sick!) cladistic analyses of bird evolution often had them evolving directly from dinosaurs, and had dinosaurs in a distinct clade from reptiles, while non-cladistic taxonomy sometimes had birds evolving from lizards, but still considered dinosaurs as reptiles... and so on.]

[Wow, I just bored the crap out of you, didn't I? :D]
Nope. I think the argument about birds and dinosaurs has moved on to other aspects. Discovery of true dinosaurs with feathers has caused a shift. I doubt anyone is willing to go out on a limb and say feathers evolved independently twice.

There is a problem with cladistics and viruses: horizontal transfer of genetic information. You have no guarantee of getting a phylogenetic tree. (Technically, it becomes a directed acyclic graph, or dag. Viral heredity can present problems even Cleopatra VII lacked.) XMRV seems destined to break with human conventions in this area also.
 

pictureofhealth

XMRV - L'Agent du Jour
Messages
534
Likes
7
Location
Europe
Ok, so Clade = Branch basically?

"..go out on a limb .." nice one Anciendaze!!

Thanks all, for the explanations/descriptions (I'm sure there is a scientific word for 'explanations' but can't think what it is right now!)
 
Messages
39
Likes
0
A variant of XMRV means any 'strain' of XMRV; the nomenclature is sometimes used a bit differently but essentially any variant of XMRV is still identified as XMRV (hence the term 'variant'). There is no one 'standard' XMRV in that sense; all genotypes of XMRV are considered variants (including VP62). However, a gammaretrovirus that is not XMRV, such as a polytropic MLV, cannot be considered a variant of XMRV by any definition.


Again, this report is not clear to me. The WPI Science study for instance did not isolate any VP62 strain from its cohort, but instead found a few different strains of XMRV. These are still considered the same virus. If the Alter/Lo study found other strains of XMRV, then we are still only talking about one basic human gammaretrovirus. But if they found another one that is different enough from XMRV that it can be considered a separate retrovirus, then they may indeed have discovered a new human MLV-related virus. The infamous slide from Alter's leaked presentation stated that:

Note that this finding was in the donor supply, not CFS patients (so far as we know). "Related MLVs" presumably include things like polytropic MLVs.. the key question will be whether these are truly human retroviruses, whether they have been previously identified, and (in any case) what they are doing in the blood supply. Another question is whether they could be associated with human disease, e.g. whether they too are found in CFS patients in higher percentages than healthy donors. But the first thing, as I said, would be to check to see if the Alter paper matches the leaked Alter presentation on this issue.



If they isolated and sequenced virus and found new viral strains or even new human retroviruses, I think that they would... either in this paper or in an addendum to follow.
I may have reported the info incorrectly. We will see very shortly, but I believe that Lo/Alter will focus on MLV's. XMRV is a human MLV-related virus, but clearly the WPI has been saying that it is highly likely that there are other MLV's, including polytropic MLV. I believe that is why they are so frustrated with the negative studies not being able to find any human gammaretroviruses when looking for XMRV vp62. I believe that WPI's position will be validated.

The big news, of course, is that whatever "they call it and define it", this human gammaretrovirus is in the blood of CFS patients and healthy controls. The CDC will also, of course, try to explain away their failures and/or take credit for the work.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I may have reported the info incorrectly. We will see very shortly, but I believe that Lo/Alter will focus on MLV's. XMRV is a human MLV-related virus, but clearly the WPI has been saying that it is highly likely that there are other MLV's, including polytropic MLV. I believe that is why they are so frustrated with the negative studies not being able to find any human gammaretroviruses when looking for XMRV vp62. I believe that WPI's position will be validated.

The big news, of course, is that whatever "they call it and define it", this human gammaretrovirus is in the blood of CFS patients and healthy controls. The CDC will also, of course, try to explain away their failures and/or take credit for the work.
Hey John Leslie, i have no idea who you are but YOU ARE THE MAN (OR WOMAN) :Sign Good Job:
 

George

waitin' fer rabbits
Messages
851
Likes
80
Location
South Texas
This must be what the Ruscetti's were talking about in the video about XMRV recombining with other MLV's to form disease. So you have XMRV and MLV-1 and you have this version of CFS, XMRV and MLV-2 and you end up with this version of CFS and XMRV and MLV-3 and you end up with say Autism. XMRV as the Key master to open the cells up and allow the MLV's which would normally be cleared from a human or primate but the XMRV allows them to sneak through and do what they do.

That must be why the DHHS waited so long to get their house in order. This is going to be explosive with a full "sweep" of illnesses that have languished in the research and treatment dust bin for decades coming into the light. WOW and we get to be here to see it all. Cool!
 
Messages
39
Likes
0
This must be what the Ruscetti's were talking about in the video about XMRV recombining with other MLV's to form disease. So you have XMRV and MLV-1 and you have this version of CFS, XMRV and MLV-2 and you end up with this version of CFS and XMRV and MLV-3 and you end up with say Autism. XMRV as the Key master to open the cells up and allow the MLV's which would normally be cleared from a human or primate but the XMRV allows them to sneak through and do what they do.

That must be why the DHHS waited so long to get their house in order. This is going to be explosive with a full "sweep" of illnesses that have languished in the research and treatment dust bin for decades coming into the light. WOW and we get to be here to see it all. Cool!
I think this is a very likely possibility.
 

Sunshine

Senior Member
Messages
208
Likes
5
Location
UK
This must be what the Ruscetti's were talking about in the video about XMRV recombining with other MLV's to form disease. So you have XMRV and MLV-1 and you have this version of CFS, XMRV and MLV-2 and you end up with this version of CFS and XMRV and MLV-3 and you end up with say Autism. XMRV as the Key master to open the cells up and allow the MLV's which would normally be cleared from a human or primate but the XMRV allows them to sneak through and do what they do.

That must be why the DHHS waited so long to get their house in order. This is going to be explosive with a full "sweep" of illnesses that have languished in the research and treatment dust bin for decades coming into the light. WOW and we get to be here to see it all. Cool!
George I award you phoenix genius of the day, what a great paragraph!
Now i must get back to my CBT, my belief is bubbling I have a virus and this will delay my recovery....
 

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,976
Likes
16,578
Sunshine said:
MLV class virus are the only viruses shown to infect mitochondria and alter CREB gene function, and XMRV is an MLV class virus....which does make one wonder about XMRV in ME/CFS.
This may also help to explain why having a "CFS mother" is a risk factor for CFS but not a "CFS father". I don't remember right now where I read that.

John Leslie said:
According to my Washington contact, the Lo/Alter paper will be released tomorrow and published on Tuesday. ...
Awesome, and about time!

Quilp said:
Hello Dannybex, I hope you are right about the 'psychologizers' but let me tell you there is not a chance in hell that they will keep quiet.
Yes, exactly.

dannybex said:
Totally understand Mark. Perhaps I should've said it may 'start the process' of quieting them down?
I agree. Another smackdown between biopsychosocialists/psychologisers vs biomedical science has been brewing. When the NIH/FDA paper is published and Mikovits et al publish their other work on immune dysfunction profile later in the year, it's "gonna be on like donkeykong".



Well summarised.

Sunshine said:
And this could explain how we are 'born' with XMRV, yet it takes on average 15-30 years to develop full blown ME/CFS. The one's who get sickest younger are sicker due to their immature immune system being acted sooner than people who 'got' to 30/40/50.
I won't go into detail before testing positive, but a lifetime XMRV infection would help explain my case.

V99 said:
The CDC either needs to be shut down and a new group set up, or it needs a complete overhaul.
I agree. Money should now flow to the WPI as well.
 

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Likes
6,199
Location
Sofa, UK
This must be what the Ruscetti's were talking about in the video about XMRV recombining with other MLV's to form disease. So you have XMRV and MLV-1 and you have this version of CFS, XMRV and MLV-2 and you end up with this version of CFS and XMRV and MLV-3 and you end up with say Autism. XMRV as the Key master to open the cells up and allow the MLV's which would normally be cleared from a human or primate but the XMRV allows them to sneak through and do what they do.

That must be why the DHHS waited so long to get their house in order. This is going to be explosive with a full "sweep" of illnesses that have languished in the research and treatment dust bin for decades coming into the light. WOW and we get to be here to see it all. Cool!
One main question really leaps to mind:

Is it true that some MLVs are known to be present in vaccines and known to infect humans after vaccination but have been previously considered harmless?

:eek:

I seem to recall reading that from one of the "Bad Science" style sources - scientists mocking the WPI and suggesting they are probably just picking up fragments of harmless MLVs...I really want to know now if I've remembered all that right and MLVs are established as being transmitted in vaccines...

If my recollection is correct, will all this basically vindicate Dr Wakefield pretty quickly?

:eek:
 

pictureofhealth

XMRV - L'Agent du Jour
Messages
534
Likes
7
Location
Europe
I wonder if it would also explain the first big UK cluster outbreak of ME at the Royal Free Hospital?

Some of the staff who became ill that year are still in wheelchairs/bedbound today.

It would be interesting to know if there had been a round of vaccinations previously that week or if aerosols with 'unknown' contents were being sprayed around 'just to see what happened and if anyone came down with a 'cold'.
 

George

waitin' fer rabbits
Messages
851
Likes
80
Location
South Texas
One main question really leaps to mind:

Is it true that some MLVs are known to be present in vaccines and known to infect humans after vaccination but have been previously considered harmless?

:eek:

I seem to recall reading that from one of the "Bad Science" style sources - scientists mocking the WPI and suggesting they are probably just picking up fragments of harmless MLVs...I really want to know now if I've remembered all that right and MLVs are established as being transmitted in vaccines...

If my recollection is correct, will all this basically vindicate Dr Wakefield pretty quickly?

:eek:
Hey Mark
Yep on all that. Just go to MLV on Wikipedia and it gives a nice summary. We have been using MLV's as a vaccine delivery system since the 60's. Yeah, eeek!

And we've been using various MLV's for gene therapy since the 70's. The week after the WPI publish, I set up a XMRV and MLV alert on Google. Three different journals "RE-published" research showing that MLV's were cleared from Primate blood within 10 days. I wondered at the time you know WTF are they republishing this stuff for??? But it makes sense now. Some of the Retroviriologist must have relized the potential implications. It's well known among those working with MLV's that they are notorious for "recombining" and reeking havoc...... so we are all about to find out the "rest of the story". (big grins, dang it I done peed the carpet again, sigh)