NEW - FDA Website Q&A on XMRV, MLV's & Alter/Lo PNAS Study outcomes

[pictureofhealth]

Blood seems like the most obvious place to start looking for a retrovirus (and at the end of the day if they come up with a simple test it will be easy for the family doctor to use).

However, I'm wondering how far down the line this is going to go before researchers start looking more thoroughly in other tissues or body fluids?

For eg, the eyes and the sinuses are near the brain (the eyes are a direct extension of the nervous system), perhaps a simple nasal swab or a swab from tears around the eyes, which may also contain tissue cells could yield some answers?

There are other body fluids that are obviously accessible under certain conditions - we don't necessarily need to be looking at taking biopsies from live patients just yet, unless the other options don't pan out.

In the meantime, I think Dr Singh's idea of looking at post mortem Brain and Tissue bank samples might move things along hugely.

 

[Parismountain]

I've read the blog of the blogger who's name we will never mention here (reminds me of the 10 commandments movie, Charleton Heston one) and a criticism she has of the Alter paper is, according to name we won't mention, there is no mention of blinding at all anywhere in the paper, nada, zilch. Is that so basic now that it doesn't have to be mentioned that they handle all blood the same without knowing which group to which it belongs? I still just gotta believe they are blind to which group the blood has come from when they test.

 

[bullybeef]

The German study seems to have been completely forgotten as the only study to have found XMRV in something other than blood.

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

Remember, didn't Susan say that they put it in the wrong vials with wrong chemicals?

Tina

 

[JT1024]

the fact that neither group found any xmrv in those CDC samples indicates to me that there was something wrong with the samples, not the corhort.

Rrrr.... I do think the cohort selection in the CDC study was just ONE of the problems with the study. The samples themselves and the testing just add to their problems. I suspect when they test the FDA/NIH samples, they won't find anything either.

IMHO, the CDC failed miserably in so many ways it is an embarrassment. I am still shocked their study was even published.

 

[Gemini]

Dr. Lo at one point said that one day a test could be negative and the next day positive, presumably due to the low copy numbers. As I recall the WPI did multiple PCR runs on patients to find the virus on some cases. It's very likely likely a MLV was in this patient, just not detected with PCR that day.

Otis,

Thanks! Thought Dr. Lo said that but wasn't sure.

Physicians will have to be educated to re-test
negatives on different days if that's the case.

Gemini

 

[RustyJ]

erm...96.6%

I agree which is why I said I didnt know in retrovirus terms - the differences could be primarily located in the method used to enter cells and not the payloads - how big the retrovirus's essential machinery is relative to it's size would be important in determining it's effective similarity to XMRV - ie it's probably possible you could have a retrovirus with sigificantly more differences than this but be functionally identical - but my field didnt used to be biology - it was computers - so I dont know

Wonko, this CFIDS explanation sheds some light on the differences between each of the MLV related viruses. Even I understood it. At least for today. Tomorrow I may not.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5477506&fbid=424858522107&id=47921632107

 

[Bob]

Wonko, this CFIDS explanation sheds some light on the differences between each of the MLV related viruses. Even I understood it. At least for today. Tomorrow I may not.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5477506&fbid=424858522107&id=47921632107

I've looked at their pictorial explanation, and it is factually incorrect... XMRV is not an MLV... it is an MLV-related virus.

Also, Alter did not designate his viruses as 'MLVs', but as MLV-related viruses.

They also have an incomplete, incorrect and misleading, explanation of the meaning of Xenotropic... Xenotropic means that the virus cannot infect the original host (i.e. a mouse), but can only infect another species, in this case humans. (A xenotropic virus is present in the original species, but benignly, and it is not possible to infect the original species with a xenotropic virus.)

I don't know what else they have wrong... I can't be bothered to read through it all...

I've tried to write an easy to understand explanation of the MLV-related viruses, here:
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...Dr.-Alter-Out!&p=115953&viewfull=1#post115953

 

[Smulan]

I recall that HIV is in fact 2 viruses, HIV 1 and HIV 2 with similar but not identical properties. Some tests for HIV (1) could not detect HIV (2)