New Amy Dockser Marcus blog re XMRV Working Group Report

[Robyn]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[parvofighter]

Is it possible to actually eliminate a retroviral infection???!

As I understand it, anti-virals never clear retroviruses completely, just suppress their activity... Given that, it seems unlikely that re-infection is going to be an issue for those already infected.

Hi Sean, in principle, I wholly agree with you. It was some recent work from Montreal that got me excited, where they were discussing how to eliminate viral reservoirs of HIV... in other words, it MIGHT be possible to eradicate a retroviral infection. Check out this thread where we discussed this earlier - very interesting stuff: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...o-ANTI-RETROVIRAL-Drugs-Work&highlight=sekaly

Treatment of HIV 'sanctuary' cells creates path for possible cure: http://www.montrealgazette.com/story...20793&sponsor=

Excerpt:
Though there are limits to the success of antiretroviral therapy, Routy and Sekaly say the new treatment's success will be contingent on a patient's positive response to antiretroviral therapy. If a patient shows success with current treatments, then the new treatment can target the cells, killing those last remaining ones, and "the patient will remain virus-free for a long time or forever," said Routy.
​

Admittedly I'm thinking a few steps ahead... but the prospect does arise then that one could re-infect with XMRV... or that exposure to a new XMRV strain could confer unknown pathogenic consequences.

On the bright side, I keep thinking of those chemo patients with premorbid ME/CFS who get chemo, then their ME/CFS dramatically improves (b-cell depletion, killing off reservoirs?)... It's a nice thought, eh?:Retro smile:

 

[RustyJ]

Parvo. Not trying to jump down your throat. Trying to get some debate going in my own foggy way. I think your contributions to this site are invaluable and I wish I had your clear-headedness to intelligently analyse findings. Keep up the good work.

I must admit the wording of Amy's article was confusing and was unsure of whether the samples she was talking about were clinical or analytical. Not sure she knew either.

 

[Sean]

parvo

Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff.

Of course my comments only apply to the current situation with anti-virals, it is always possible they will come up with some way of completely clearing them. Which would be nice. Always preferable not to be on any drug for life, if there is any alternative.

 

[RustyJ]

So it would already be in the blood supply and in it for the last 25 years or so as well.

Hi Robyn. Did anyone answer you? I am trying to find a references to a report of .1% contamination I think that I thought came out mid-June. Haven't had any luck. Someone else out there might be able to help. As for how many years, I don't think that has been determined. Could theoretically have been in the blood supply for much longer than that. It is very early days. Government is only just moving on looking into this.

However it is my understanding the virus doesn't require blood for replication, and is in fact hard to find in blood. More likely in tissue and replication is via cell to cell.

 

[parvofighter]

No worries, mate

No worries, RustyJ... I might be able to help out on the 0.1% reference (Abbott from CROI?), altho that does seem really low in the context of the Japanese finding of 1.7% infected blood donors, and the latest FDA (unpublished) figures of 3-7% of "normals".

Sean, I agree - I'd rather not be on drugs-for-life.

Cheers, Parvo:Retro smile:

 

[RustyJ]

Parvo, thanks for the info. You are right with the info. Not sure if Abbott was all that successful with their testing. The .1% figure seems to be the only time someone has translated donor percentage with XMRV to percentage of virus in the blood banks. 3-7% of donors is still a long way from saying 3-7% of the blood supply, given the relatively low concentration of virus in the blood. Or is that still muddle-headed thinking - like saying something is 98% fat-free?

 

[RustyJ]

Addition or correction to above. FDA says .1% of donors not .1% of blood supply. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte.../BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm218968.htm

Where did they get this figure from? Is this from Abbott?

 

[Sam Carter]

Addition or correction to above. FDA says .1% of donors not .1% of blood supply. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte.../BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm218968.htm

Where did they get this figure from? Is this from Abbott?

It's from Abbot, RustyJ.

http://www.retroconference.org/2010/Abstracts/39393.htm

 

[Cort]

Seems to suggest that the CDC labs have been looking for the wrong virus up till now which would explain the negative results. In other words no one bothered to use WPI's samples ... didn't bother, didn't want to, or never in a million years. At least WPI seems to be driving this effort.

That's not actually true I don't think - they did ask for and request the WPI's samples but at least four teams have been unable to find any XMRV in them. What they don't appear to be doing is using the WPI's 'amended' techniques.