Nature article about Judy Mikovits and XMRV

[Cloud]

SickOfCfs, I wasn't sure about the journal either. I just knew something was awry but didn't know enough to speak up.

I want to agree with a post some ways back about not wanting to come off as criticizing Ann (it was a critique of the article, not Ann). She has my full appreciation and utmost respect.

Esther, thanks for the humor and your post..."LOL @ testing the scientfic validity of mission statements". That helped me make sense of that topic.

On a serious note IVI, I think there is more than "common characteristics" to some of these neuroimmune diseases. I believe there is plenty of evidence showing certain common pathophysiological abnormalities, suggesting strong association, and supporting a hypothesis of common, or at least related, etiology. I believe the WPI is currently doing the work to further support that hypothesis.

This is the first thread where I have gotten the impression that some believe the WPI has a single focus on xmrv....that has not been my understanding. Primary yes, but not exclusive.

 

[Sing]

Great points, Angela! "the social construction of scientists", and how "demeanor", or style, ought to be irrelevant---but isn't, as you say Esther, as science is also a social process.

I like Dr. Mikovits's "wild hair"--that is, wild woman style, as it is iconoclastic, attention-getting, paradigm-changing, just as Einstein's was too. Einstein with his wild hair, apparently enjoyed the limelight and public presentations. I think his style helped convey the discoveries and whole new view of scientific reality he was onto. I see Dr. Mikovits as willing and able to be a strong innovator too, and that is what her style conveys to me. Of course, I know and accept that it is in the details of the science that progress can come about.

And further, about women trying to work in what's been a man's field. The "nice girl" approach, which we see in some of our other figures, makes some headway at times, and at others, just falls to the wayside--elbowed aside or ignored.

It is interesting to watch this level playing out, though the real "ball in play" is the science itself.

 

[3CFIDS@ourhouse]

I posted this on the other thread, but will post here, too. Am I the only one who didn't know Lipkin's study had the three different labs using their own method of choice for testing? How will that clear up any of the questions? Or am I confused? I thought Lipkin was looking for a retrovirus, but the article sounds like he's just compiling data from the NIH, CDC, and WPI.

 

[Esther12]

I posted this on the other thread, but will post here, too. Am I the only one who didn't know Lipkin's study had the three different labs using their own method of choice for testing? How will that clear up any of the questions? Or am I confused? I thought Lipkin was looking for a retrovirus, but the article sounds like he's just compiling data from the NIH, CDC, and WPI.

I'm a bit confused by this too. Sounds like what the BWG are doing.

It should work though. If they take blood samples from those CFS patients the WPI said are positive, blind them with samples from healthy controls and then send them to the three labs for testing, the results should let us know what's going on. If the labs get similar rates of 'positives' for healthy and CFS samples, then it was probably all just contamination. If any of the labs find significantly more 'positives' from CFS patients than healthy controls, then that indicates there is a correlation between XMRV and CFS.

I wish they'd done this at the time of the initial negative studies, when this was starting to look controversial.

 

[asleep]

Good points. We'll see about Levy. It will be interesting to see how far he goes in replicating the study. Does he use all the same materials? All the same steps? I don't think the research community feels the need to do every single step exactly because I don't think they've ever found a virus in which if you don't do what they believe to be really minor, minor things things the same you can't find it.

I guess what I'm thinking is that they have identified the big steps where they know that changes can make a difference in finding viruses and I assume (a dangerous word!) that they are looking at those in XMRv. The really 'little' stuff that doesn't seem to make a difference - we'll see how Levy does with that. Hopefully it will be as close to the original WPI study as possible. That will be an interesting study indeed.

This is deeply flawed reasoning. In fact, it is fundamentally unscientific. Science, if anything, is about details. It is about understanding and controlling for variables, and every little detail is a variable. To suggest that these variables can be casually disregarded is absurd.

Your unsupported, generic appeal the "the research community" does nothing to support your claims. It is merely an attempt to cover your dangerously flawed logic with a non-specific appeal to authority.

I suggest you read this thread that I started to address precisely these common misconceptions that you unfortunately seem to suffer from with alarming regularity.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

On a serious note IVI, I think there is more than "common characteristics" to some of these neuroimmune diseases. I believe there is plenty of evidence showing certain common pathophysiological abnormalities, suggesting strong association, and supporting a hypothesis of common, or at least related, etiology. I believe the WPI is currently doing the work to further support that hypothesis.

How can that 'work' be seen as objective when the Institute is defining its whole function on the grounds that the hypothesis is 'true' ? Could anyone seriously believe that the WPI Board will accept research that says that the hypotheses is 'fatally flawed' ? Of course 'mission statements' are frequently hype, but in the case of WPI its controlling authority (the Board) has no Scientific competance - what basis is there to assumed a commitment to objectivity when the 'hype' is constructed to embrace an off the wall concept of illness.

We can all come up with favoured ideas about how our illness fits in the grand scheme of the dysfunctions of human health, but for research institutions to retain credibility with funders and peers, objectivity (like justice) not only needs to be 'done' it needs to be 'seen to be done'. A new (dare one say 'upstart' ?) Institution that wants to be involved in breaking research boundaries needs friends amongst existing researchers, so far WPI seems culturally incapable of forging the necessary alliances. This is a potentially very unhealthy position for CFS affected people because Mikovits and WPI are now so closely identified with 'cause of CFS' that at the very point where CFS research needs defending, there may be no one there to do it.

IVI

 

[asleep]

You picked up on some things that I didn't on my first reading. First - who are those collaborators (ie the original paper authors) who are having second thoughts? Assuming that that's true - reading between the lines my guesses would be Silverman and Peterson. The paper stated that Silverman is no longer working with Dr. Mikovits however Dr. Deckoff-Jones in her blog stated that all the study authors were still behind the results. Since Silverman has a long history with XMRV and has alot on the line here I would be surprised if he would tell a reporter this....so my guess, based on circumstantial evidence is the the journalist is referring to Dr. Peterson.

Actually, the point I was making was not about omitted details (i.e. who is being referenced), but the use of unsupported innuendo that serves to exclusively undermine confidence in the WPI. By hemming and hawing and speculating on specific implications of this innuendo, you are actually adding fuel to its effect by condoning its central thrust.

Also, I'm surprised you didn't notice these techniques on first pass.

I think researchers have replicated the PCR and antibody tests...

Not true. Nor will any amount of repetition make this statement true.

I don't think they describe Towers, Coffin, et all in that way because they don't talk that way - they fit the kind of objective, colorless, scientific mold better.

The absurdity of this has already been addressed by others, but I want to remind people of specifics:

Towers is the one whose December paper was accompanied by a press release that stated, without qualification, that XMRV does not cause ME/CFS.

Coffin is the one who stated recently "It's all contamination" (source, it's in the full article which might require subscription).

Quite "objective" and "colorless," these two.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

In Vitro,
*nods*

Esther
the danger with folk like Wessley is: they understand how people tick, what cues to pull to sound resonable etc
but that has bugger ALL to do with actual factual science and curing the sick.

Complete loonies have run rampant in science for last 200 years, because they were chamring or even true psychopths, pseudo-scientists beguiled idiots like Stalin and Hitler wasting vast sums on their crap.
Others have languished because their work is not popular or current morales of society disapproved (see Dr Erlich, iirc? guy who created first effective syphilis treatment, or HIV work ealry on)

I dearly wish all research became utterly divorced form money and politics, so it could be done ethically and honestly, fraud and crap is endemic to medical research especially, FACT, go check up on it, because of pharma corps greed. This has got to stop!
Sigh.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

I like Dr. Mikovits's "wild hair"--that is, wild woman style, as it is iconoclastic, attention-getting, paradigm-changing, just as Einstein's was too. Einstein with his wild hair, apparently enjoyed the limelight and public presentations. I think his style helped convey the discoveries and whole new view of scientific reality he was onto. I see Dr. Mikovits as willing and able to be a strong innovator too, and that is what her style conveys to me. Of course, I know and accept that it is in the details of the science that progress can come about.

The 'image of Einstein' as the 'nutty professor' certainly made science 'popular' and allowed Albert to become a celeb - but it had nothing to do with Special Relativity being taken seriously, something which happened while Einstein was an ernest clerk in a patent office. Einstein probably never had to write or present a grant bid in his life and by the time he became famous his achievements as a theorist were largely behind him - he never accepted Quantum Mechanics (the main driver of theory in the 20thC) and Einstein's contributions to theoretical physics after 1930 were very limited.

The one thing that marked Einstein out from most of his peers was his ability to get along with those he disagreed with and to play in public the 'everybody's favourite uncle' role - there's not much sign of Mikovits being able to do either - or at least a gender appropriate version in the latter case. Mikovits may have many talents, but PR where it matters doesn't seem to be one of them, nor is she apparently a 'great brain' and at her age unlikely to become one (most 'geniuses' only shine before they are 30), her previous achievements seem largely marked by adeptness at administration, a valuable skill, but there's not much hope of any E=MCxMC moments.

IVI

 

[urbantravels]

Time will tell whether Judy Mikovits is remembered as a Bob Gallo or as a....Peter Duesberg. (I was going to say Andrew Wakefield, but I knew I'd get burned at the stake by much of this community for drawing that comparison.)

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Time will tell whether Judy Mikovits is remembered as a Bob Gallo or as a....Peter Duesberg. (I was going to say Andrew Wakefield, but I knew I'd get burned at the stake by much of this community for drawing that comparison.)

You wouldn't really get burned at the stake now, would you? People might object because of the discrepancies of the so-called case against Wakefield and the uncomfortable similarities to a witch-hunt pursued against him, perhaps.

But then some people might agree with you. The old generalisation of 'the community' not so apt here.

Comparing Mikovits to some constructed hero or villain status is irrelevant anyway. I think people should move away from that way of thinking. It obfuscates the real issues and adds confusion to the debate, which is pretty complex and difficult to fully understand at the best of times.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

.
The one thing that marked Einstein out from most of his peers was his ability to get along with those he disagreed with and to play in public the 'everybody's favourite uncle' role - there's not much sign of Mikovits being able to do either - or at least a gender appropriate version in the latter case.

Oh good grief- 'gender appropriate'. Is that your 'objective' findings? That Mikovits isn't 'gender appropriate'? So - sociology not one of your talents then? Or are you just trying to wind up the women here? What is in vitro infidelium's prescription for gender appropriate behaviour?

Mikovits may have many talents, but PR where it matters doesn't seem to be one of them, nor is she apparently a 'great brain' and at her age unlikely to become one (most 'geniuses' only shine before they are 30), her previous achievements seem largely marked by adeptness at administration, a valuable skill, but there's not much hope of any E=MCxMC moments.

Sigh. So - what are your scientific sources for THESE findings? All the research on 'great brains' and geniuses? What is in vitro infidelium's validated case definition of a great brain/genius? Have you personally been testing Mikovit's IQ? Perhaps remotely?

Or is this just that Judy Mikovits rejected you when you asked her to a prom or something?

 

[garcia]

Or is this just that Judy Mikovits rejected you when you asked her to a prom or something?

LMAO!!! :tear:

 

[currer]

IVI -This is all getting a bit personal about Dr. Mikovits for my taste.
Remember the CROI conference? And the discomfiture of the researchers when they realised they had got a completely new, replication-competent retrovirus on their hands? Something they had never expected to find in this class of MRV? Something they thought could not happen, so they took no safety precautions? A retrovirus which could infect human cells?
If Dr. Mikovits found this previously unknown infectious retrovirus in her patients I think it understandable to be excited as a researcher and to feel the need to put all her resources into this work.
I think we are forgetting just how unusual and unexpected a retrovirus XMRV is.

Retrospective criticism is easy.

 

[paddygirl]

Dr Silverman

I've read most of this thread, and seen references to Dr Silverman haveing a change of heart.

A post about a new paper from him has just appeared on XMRV.ORG facebook page. I'm dopey today but it doesn't read as if he had abandoned his beliefs.

 

[Esther12]

No it doesn't. We don't know when it was written though - it can take months for these things to be published.

I don't think we've got any good indication that Silverman has had a change of heart, just that he's going back to check things. I'm really keen to hear his response though.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

Looks like Silverman is too busy figuring out how XMRV actually causes disease to have any change of heart.

Recall that IL-8 is one of the cytokines most consistently elevated in ME/CFS patients:

Authors: Michael Lee, Elona Gusho, Jaydip Das Gupta, Eric Klein and Robert Silverman

Title: XMRV INFECTION INDUCES HOST GENES THAT REGULATE INFLAMMATION AND CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY

Journal: The Journal of Urology

Date: April 2011

Summary:

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: XMRV is a novel human retrovirus associated with prostate cancer. Although other gammaretroviruses cause cancer in animals, it remains unknown if XMRV is a cause of disease. However, indirect or direct modes of carcinogenesis by XMRV have been suggested depending on whether the virus was found in stroma or malignant epithelium. To gain insight into the
possible role of XMRV in these diseases we have identified genes that are induced in response to XMRV infection.

METHODS: Prostate cancer cell line DU145 was infected for 8, 24, 48 and 120h with XMRV. A comparison to uninfected DU145 cells cultured for the same periods of time served as controls. A population of total RNA was isolated using Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit followed by digestion of DNA with DNAse treatment. XMRV infections at the different time points were monitored using real-time RT-PCR for env XMRV RNA. The RNA samples were analyzed for gene expression using Sentrix humanRef-8 v3 expression bead chips from Illumina (Cleveland Clinic Genomics Core). To verify the results obtained by the array experiment, we determined induction of a subset of the regulated genes. Total RNA was reverse transcribed to cDNA using iScript Select cDNA Synthesis Kit from Bio-Rad (random primers method). Induction of selected genes by XMRV infection was verified by qPCR (Relative Quantification) from the cDNA pool using SYBR Green master mix. Fold-induction at each time point for the individual mRNAs was determined. In addition, pathway predictions were determined using Ingenuity Systems (content version 3002) software for genes induced by more than 2-fold following XMRV infection.

RESULTS: In gene expression profiling, we observed maximal gene induction between 24 and 48 h post-infection. For example, the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL8 gene, a potential contributing factor to
androgen independent growth of late-stage prostate cancer, was consistently induced by XMRV infection by up to 6-fold. Of the XMRV induced genes, pathway analysis indicated 10 genes are implicated in cell morphology, 11 genes in cellular development, 12 genes in cell-to-cell signaling and interaction, 11 genes in cellular movement and 13 genes in cellular growth and proliferation.

CONCLUSIONS: The chemokine IL-8 is one of the most highly induced genes in response to XMRV infection of prostate cancer cell line DU145. XMRV induction of the 30 host genes identified in this study suggests a profound effect of the virus on fundamental cellular physiology and inflammation. These findings could be relevant to the possible pathogenic effects on XMRV in prostate cancer.

Yeah Silverman's having second thoughts... nice try!

 

[Jemal]

No it doesn't. We don't know when it was written though - it can take months for these things to be published.

I don't think we've got any good indication that Silverman has had a change of heart, just that he's going back to check things. I'm really keen to hear his response though.

Didn't forum member Ecoclimber claim that Silverman was getting pretty nervous because of the recent findings? Ecoclimber received some flak for that from the forum as he couldn't prove anything... but this doesn't entirely sound like a coincidence anymore.

FunkOdyssey's post above me could also indicate that Silverman is still very much in the game of course (though it could be older research and Silverman might have become nervous only recently).

Personally I hope he's still researching XMRV and not losing interest!

 

[Esther12]

I don't think we need to worry about him losing interest! He'll be in this until it's worked out for sure.

 

[Cort]

Bad news about Silverman from the Tribune article on XRMV

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-chronic-fatigue-xmrv-20110317,0,6116823.story?page=2

"I am concerned about lab contamination, despite our best efforts to avoid it," Silverman wrote in an e-mail, adding that similar cell lines "are in many, many labs around the world. Contamination could come from any one of a number of different sites."

That widely used cell line had been stored in Silverman's lab before he found evidence of the retrovirus in the prostate tissue of patients with a form of prostate cancer.

"22RV1 cells were once previously (more than a year earlier) grown in my lab but were being stored in a liquid nitrogen freezer at the time, and not the same freezer used to store prostate tissues," Silverman wrote in an e-mail. "At the time it was unknown that 22RV1 cells were infected with XMRV."

That can't have been easy to say - he was the one that discovered the darn virus...