Mikovits responds to Singh Study

[dannybex]

"The lead author of the contested Science paper, retrovirologist Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, Nevada, isn't persuaded by the Singh group's inability to detect XMRV in anyone. "I was astounded when I leaned that Ila [Singh] didn't find it," says Mikovits. "These are good scientists."

Mikovits says she remains confident that the 14 CFS patients she selected for Singh's group have XMRV in their bodies. "These people are infected," says Mikovits. "This study says nothing. We have complete confidence in every bit of the results in the Science paper. We don't think any of it is wrong. There is no evidence of contamination in our lab, and we have controlled for that all along."


http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/more-bad-news-for-chronic-fatigue.html?ref=hp

 

[LJS]

I find it concerning that she is unable to admit any mistakes, no study is perfect and her first study in Science certainly had room for improvement.

I feel this is frankly an arrogant response to Singh's Study at this point; "This study says nothing", really?? Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

Mikovits says she remains confident that the 14 CFS patients she selected for Singh's group have XMRV in their bodies. "These people are infected," says Mikovits. "This study says nothing. We have complete confidence in every bit of the results in the Science paper. We don't think any of it is wrong. There is no evidence of contamination in our lab, and we have controlled for that all along."

 

[caledonia]

Dr. Singh can't explain why there is not 4% XMRV detected in controls like in her prostate cancer studies. The prostate cancer studies used tissue. The CFS study used blood.

This leads me to think Dr. Singh can't find XMRV in blood, like all the other 0/0 studies.

See Mindy Kitei's blog and interview with Dr. Singh. http://www.cfscentral.com/2011/05/dr-ila-singh-we-are-now-convinced-that.html#comments

 

[alex3619]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/more-bad-news-for-chronic-fatigue.html?ref=hp

Quote: Singh says she and her co-workers also had problems with contamination. When they ran one PCR assay that had been used in the original Science report, they found 5% of both CFS and control samples tested positive for XMRV. "It was very confusing until we figured out it was contamination," says Singh. Specifically, they fingered a PCR reagent, the Taq polymerase enzyme, as the source of the mouse sequences they detected. They further found that one of the machines they used to test samples also had been contaminated with XMRV in studies they had done months before the current analysis. "Everyone who works with mice has mouse retrovirus contamination in their lab," says Coffin. "I probably have it in my home swimming pool."

The I would like to draw attention to the common 5% contamination rate with controls and patients. This is what you expect from contamination - the same finding in both controls and patients. The positive studies repeatedly have a low positive rate in controls, and a high rate in patients. This does not fit with contamination.

An extreme sceptic would be forced to conclude that both the contamination and association theories are wrong - which leaves us where? With a huge unsolved mystery!

Bye
Alex

 

[Mya Symons]

From CFS Central, Mindy Asks Dr. Singh: In your prostate-cancer study, XMRV is present in malignant prostatic epithelium and is associated with prostate cancer, especially high-grade tumors, you found 4 percent of healthy controls with evidence of XMRV. If youre finding a background rate in controls in your prostate-cancer studies, why do you think you didnt find a background rate in CFS patients and controls?


Singh: Not entirely sure, but there were different assays (e.g. immunohistochemistry) and different sample types (blood vs prostate tissue).


I think this is the key question. Because some of her controls were positive, she can't be right (her prostate study can't be correct) and Mikovitz be wrong. Either they both are wrong and both their positive results are due to contamination or they are both right and their positives are real. It doesn't make sense for her to claim that the difference in the studies were because she is studying prostate cancer, not CFS, when she had positive controls. Is there something I am missing here?

 

[currer]

I am starting to wonder whether current scientific methods of (retro)viral detection are incapable of providing an accurate and reliable answer in this instance. Perhaps we trust these methods to be more accurate than they really can be? Given such divergent findings from reliable, responsible researchers.

Perhaps we should turn to clinical trials (not necessarily of ARVs, immune modulators would be a good start) to open up the research data a bit?

 

[justinreilly]

Dr. Singh can't explain why there is not 4% XMRV detected in controls like in her prostate cancer studies. The prostate cancer studies used tissue. The CFS study used blood.

This leads me to think Dr. Singh can't find XMRV in blood, like all the other 0/0 studies.

See Mindy Kitei's blog and interview with Dr. Singh. http://www.cfscentral.com/2011/05/dr-ila-singh-we-are-now-convinced-that.html#comments

I agree.

I find it concerning that she is unable to admit any mistakes, no study is perfect and her first study in Science certainly had room for improvement.

I feel this is frankly an arrogant response to Singh's Study at this point; "This study says nothing", really?? Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

I do think Dr. M goes too far sometimes. I don't think it's true that "This study says nothing" and why provoke people?

 

[justinreilly]

The I would like to draw attention to the common 5% contamination rate with controls and patients. This is what you expect from contamination - the same finding in both controls and patients. The positive studies repeatedly have a low positive rate in controls, and a high rate in patients. This does not fit with contamination.

very good point, Alex!

 

[Waverunner]

"The debate about whether XMRV infects humans and is linked to disease promises to come to a head later this year, when two different studies sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health are completed. The studies both involve Mikovits and several other independent labs testing the same samples. Mikovits says if all the samples in these studies test negative, including in her own lab, the day could come when she changes her mind. "But I don't expect to get to that day," she says."

Judy Mikovits admits that she could be wrong but she doesn't think so.

 

[heapsreal]

I would luve to hear from those several scientists in the late 1980s and eraly 90s that found evidence of a retrovirus, their comments on the politics and also them to look over the studies and testing procedures. mmmmmm??????

 

[eric_s]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/more-bad-news-for-chronic-fatigue.html?ref=hp

Quote: Singh says she and her co-workers also had problems with contamination. When they ran one PCR assay that had been used in the original Science report, they found 5% of both CFS and control samples tested positive for XMRV. "It was very confusing until we figured out it was contamination," says Singh.

Yes exactly, Alex. I don't find a 5%/5% result very confusing. Even i could quite quickly think of a good explanation for that. This is what you'd expect, if there was contamination. Or what Brigitte Huber found: More "XMRV" in controls than in cases.

And please, Coffin, no more swimming pool stories. Comment on the data and spare us the "rumor virus", "drop of mouse blood in my swimming pool" stuff.

 

[Bob]

I find it concerning that she is unable to admit any mistakes, no study is perfect and her first study in Science certainly had room for improvement.

I feel this is frankly an arrogant response to Singh's Study at this point; "This study says nothing", really?? Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

Well, some people might find Judy's use of wording slightly jarring, but she is totally accurate when she says that this study tells us nothing, other than the fact that Singh was unable to detect XMRV (Disclaimer - I haven't read through all of the Singh study yet, but until I do I'm assuming that this is the case, as with all the other zero-zero studies.) I expect that Judy is probably severely frustrated and is purposely defending her research with unambiguous and clear language.

I don't agree that Judy should admit any mistakes, even if her first study had room for improvement, because her huge body of work is solid, and she has checked it, and rechecked it, using more and more detailed research as time goes by.

Judy has carried out an immense amount of unpublished work since the first Science study, which she probably completed about two years ago now.
Unfortunately no one will publish any of her work for purely political reasons, it appears, simply because her name is attached to it, not because of the quality of the work.

Singh's study failed to find XMRV and we must remember that absence of evidence is not the same of evidence of absence, however excellent Singh is as a scientist.
It is possible that we are witnessing science at its limits of knowledge here, and that scientists like Singh are relying on their existing knowledge, rather than being innovative.

I agree that XMRV is not looking good right now, but the case is not settled, and even Switzer from the CDC has now found XMRV in prostate cancer patients now, and is saying that it isn't lab contamination, or mouse contamination, or a virus originating from a cell line... He is saying that they have found brand new virus variants in prostate cancer patients, and has admitted that they are at the edge of their detection limits which is why they can't always detect the virus. This is big news, as far as I'm concerned, which seems to have gone unnoticed under the radar (see here for news about this).

We have to wait for the Lipkin study results before we can make any definite conclusions about XMRV.
If Judy and Lo cannot successfully and reliably detect XMRV in that study, then XMRV will be as good as dead, and we will all have to admit that Judy and Lo cannot reliably replicate their own work. But until that time, XMRV is still very much alive, and kicking, in my opinion.

 

[ukxmrv]

I find it concerning that she is unable to admit any mistakes, no study is perfect and her first study in Science certainly had room for improvement.

I feel this is frankly an arrogant response to Singh's Study at this point; "This study says nothing", really?? Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

Dr Mikovits does not have to admit mistakes because she has not been shown at fault. The original Science paper and the association between XMRV and CFS still stands.

It's not a popularity contest. Dr Mikovits does not need to gain the respect from others scientists by changing her tone. Her work should be respected, as not one scientist has been able to disprove it or pick the original Science paper apart.

Dr Coffin said at the time that it was "as good as a first paper gets". It's him, that's changed his tune and he has yet to justify any of his new claims. No transparency that we can examine. Talk about arrogant. Total lack of respect toward Dr Mikovits and toward patients with this horrible disease.

Have a read of the AIDS book "and the band played on". The researchers fought, the patients fought and the doctors fought. This is no difference. Like it or not some scientists, doctors etc see themselves are competitors in a race for money, prestige etc.

Dr Mikovits is doing a great job to maintain her integrity in this atmosphere. She's not at fault here.

 

[floydguy]

Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

Really? How do you know this? Most scientists? Have you interviewed the thousands of scientists out there? It's always interesting when somebody slams another's hyperbole with even more ridiculous hyperbole.

That being said I wish Dr. Mikovits would tone it down a bit herself.

 

[currer]

When you think how other promising lines of research have been shut down in the past - money withdrawn, research subjected to a quick negative study and then stopped, and nothing further done about it for DECADES and the researchers never heard about again, - aren't you glad Dr Mikovits is a fighter?
Because whatever happens about XMRV it will not be a re-run of the past. At least ALL the researchers KNOW about us and ME/CFS now.

 

[Bob]

When you think how other promising lines of research have been shut down in the past - money withdrawn, research subjected to a quick negative study and then stopped, and nothing further done about it for DECADES and the researchers never heard about again, - aren't you glad Dr Mikovits is a fighter?

Yes!

Because whatever happens about XMRV it will not be a re-run of the past. At least ALL the researchers KNOW about us and ME/CFS now.

 

[insearchof]

I find it concerning that she is unable to admit any mistakes, no study is perfect and her first study in Science certainly had room for improvement.

I feel this is frankly an arrogant response to Singh's Study at this point; "This study says nothing", really?? Most scientist do not like or respect Dr. Mikovits because repeated statements like this.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective. I see Singh in a similar light at the moment for the reasons I express here http://phoenixrising.me/forums/show...ut-her-XMRV-ME-CFS-study-at-CFS-Central/page2 post #14

 

[insearchof]

I agree.



I do think Dr. M goes too far sometimes. I don't think it's true that "This study says nothing" and why provoke people?

I am not certain that Judy is provoking other than simply stating a fact. It is just another negative study in one sense and on another level, another one that raises questions - further suggesting that this is far from over.

On Singhs own admission she used different assays/methods. ***Why? Especially if others she had used in the past (prostate cancer) had demonstrated their effectiveness.


As for Dr M going too far - same could be said of Sing hereself-here: http://phoenixrising.me/forums/show...ut-her-XMRV-ME-CFS-study-at-CFS-Central/page2 my post at #14

I hope they iron out all these strange inexplicable results and dont simply say - oh well, thats it - time to move along now folks.

Singh apparently found XMRV only to dismiss it as contamination. Didn't this happen at the CDC and wasnt it said at the retroviral conference, that they revisited whether that was indeed so - and went and had their lab techs tested?

Could it be that Singh made a mistake thinking it was contamination when it was not? Is that possible or not? How possible is it to mistake contamination for pathogenic XMRV? Though the 5% finding in both groups would suggest contamination would it not?


***Edit. It was explained to me that one method is better suited to tissue than blood.

 

[insearchof]

I would luve to hear from those several scientists in the late 1980s and eraly 90s that found evidence of a retrovirus, their comments on the politics and also them to look over the studies and testing procedures. mmmmmm??????

I am thinking the same thing Heaps.

 

[insearchof]

Dr Mikovits does not have to admit mistakes because she has not been shown at fault. The original Science paper and the association between XMRV and CFS still stands.

It's not a popularity contest. Dr Mikovits does not need to gain the respect from others scientists by changing her tone. Her work should be respected, as not one scientist has been able to disprove it or pick the original Science paper apart.

Dr Coffin said at the time that it was "as good as a first paper gets". It's him, that's changed his tune and he has yet to justify any of his new claims. No transparency that we can examine. Talk about arrogant. Total lack of respect toward Dr Mikovits and toward patients with this horrible disease.
.

Agree.

Further, singh by her own admission states that different assays/methods were used here. Were they the same as those outlined in the patent? You can only patent a novel process. Consequently, if the processes used were those in the patent and or novel, this is not a replication study of Lombardi et al - no matter how extensive or thorough it might be.


I love this:

"I'd urge people to move on rather than to keep their hopes hanging on the link between XMRV and CFS," says Ila Singh, a virologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City who led the new study.

Perhaps she will be telling prostate cancer patients the same thing in light of all the negative XMRV prostate cancer studies? Some how, I dont see her singing that song.


What does this mean?

The XMRV saga is far from over. Unlike Coffin and many other skeptics, Singh contends that a virus similar to XMRV does infect humans, and her own work supports the prostate cancer connection