No Evidence of XMRV in Prostate Cancer Cohorts in the Midwestern United States

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
Oh, and it's also Towers in the study...

Besides, look at that: In the six PCR positives that they did find, they found sequences that are only distantly related to XMRV, but are nearly identical to endogenous MLV. That was not found in the WPI/NCI's study, or in the NIH/FDA study - the sequences from both studies were not such sequences - the WPI/NCI's sequences are almost identical to VP62, the FDA/NIH's sequences are more closer to polytropic MLVs and to xenotropic MLVs than they are to endogenous MLVs.
And, They also tested to look for mitochondrial DNA (as did the WPI/NCI and the FDA/NIH) - and found it! No need for the IAP assay!
That, is how a contaminated study looks like.
 

kurt

Senior Member
Messages
1,185
Likes
484
Location
USA
Here is the abstract, looks like this is from Mayo Clinic and UC London:

No Evidence of XMRV in Prostate Cancer Cohorts in the Midwestern United
States
Retrovirology 2011, 8:23

Abstract
Background: Xenotropic murine leukemia virus (MLV)-related virus (XMRV) was initially
identified in prostate cancer (PCa) tissue, particularly in the prostatic stromal fibroblasts, of patients
homozygous for the RNASEL R462Q mutation. A subsequent study reported XMRV antigens in
malignant prostatic epithelium and association of XMRV infection with PCa, especially higher-grade
tumors, independently of the RNASEL polymorphism. Further studies showed high prevalence of
XMRV or related MLV sequences in chronic fatigue syndrome patients (CFS), while others found no,
or low, prevalence of XMRV in a variety of diseases including PCa or CFS. Thus, the etiological link
between XMRV and human disease remains elusive. To address the association between XMRV
infection and PCa, we have tested prostate tissues and human sera for the presence of viral DNA, viral
antigens and anti-XMRV antibodies.
Results: Real-time PCR analysis of 110 PCa (Gleason scores >4) and 40 benign and normal prostate
tissues identified six positive samples (5 PCa and 1 non-PCa). No statistical link was observed between
the presence of proviral DNA and PCa, PCa grades, and the RNASEL R462Q mutation. The amplified
viral sequences were distantly related to XMRV, but nearly identical to endogenous MLV sequences in
mice. The PCR positive samples were also positive for mouse mitochondrial DNA by nested PCR,
suggesting contamination of the samples with mouse DNA. Immuno-histochemistry (IHC) with an
anti-XMRV antibody, but not an anti-MLV antibody that recognizes XMRV, sporadically identified
antigen-positive cells in prostatic epithelium, irrespectively of the status of viral DNA detection. No
serum (159 PCa and 201 age-matched controls) showed strong neutralization of XMRV infection at
1:10 dilution.
Conclusion: The lack of XMRV sequences or strong anti-XMRV neutralizing antibodies indicates no
or very low prevalence of XMRV in our cohorts. We conclude that real-time PCR- and IHC-positive
samples were due to laboratory contamination and non-specific immune reactions, respectively.
Yes, this is an obvious contamination result. However, still interesting since this is the first study that found false positives using Singh's IHC test. That is a kind of reverse antibody test, that looks for XMRV proteins more directly, with flourescent antibodies. So now we know that test can get false positives. They also used Platinum Taq primers, known to be contaminated, and, well, they were still contaminated. Maybe this study was run awhile ago and just finally got published, that primer contamination is not really new news. But failure of one of Singh's test certainly IS newsworthy.

Also, (from the full article) the lack of LTR is very interesting, consistent with that gene sequencing report a few days ago that Lapp pre-released. But those were part of the contaminants. So maybe not a good sign for the gene sequencing study (which has other problems anyway, but still, this is interesting).
 

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
1) They didn't find a contamination with Singh's IHC - first, because they did not prove that it was due to contamionation or non-specific immune reaction; Second, because I'm not sure that if there is a contamination, the IHC wouldn't react (so that would not be due to a non-specific immune reaction, as they presume, but because of contamination - and I don't know if people said differently. As far as I understand it the IHC assay is different than finding antibodies); And third of all, because I'm not sure that they did Singh's IHC - is it one by one what she used?

2) The lack of LTR is not as intersting as you've mentioned, since in today's presentation (at the blood pathogens conference) Dr. Mikovits, in response to a question, said that the rumor about "Chronix Biomedical" (the company that Dr. Lapp talked about) finding (using their method of sequencing the human genome) XMRV without its LTR is incorrect, and that "Chronix Biomedical" found XMRV with its LTR.
 

kurt

Senior Member
Messages
1,185
Likes
484
Location
USA
right, I meant to say found a false positive, so corrected that, no proof that is contamination. But it was with Singh's test design, the IHC is hers.
 

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
There is also no proof that this is a false positive... But as I said - I tend to think that using the IHC on contaminated samples, it will show up as positive - as opposed to the antibody test that the WPI used (as I understand it - the IHC will show up posiitve when the virus is there, whether it's from contamination or not; But the antibody test that the WPI used showed that the body has antibodies, and that's after using antibodies from animals [which could react with a contaminant - but eventually they found a response that couldn't be due to contamination]).

So what I think is:
1) I don't think that they proved that the IHC came up positive due to contamination - just the fact that they found contamination in samples doesn't mean that the samples didn't also contain XMRV that was in there to begin with, not a contaminant.
2) Even if they did - so what? Everybody knows that samples could be contaminated - and that's why you have to be carfeul regarding that and use ways to avoid contamination or to find it if it was there. The WPI/NCI and FDA/NIH have done that, and this study only provide evidence that they would have found that the samples are contaminated, if they were contaminated.
 

heapsreal

iherb 10% discount code OPA989,
Messages
9,419
Likes
9,145
Location
australia (brisbane)
You know what, i think WPI should bugger the establishment, just do their own studies and if other groups come online with them then good. I dont think any govt bodies are going to find any positives no matter what. WPI need to do treatment trials with retro positive patients and see what outcomes come from them. The govt has too much to lose by saying cfs has an infectious cause. We are only going to go forward with private organisations like WPI funded by cfs groups/patients etc. I dont think we need govt approval to say cfs is real, when WPI start seeing people recover, govt bodies wont have a choice but to admitt their wrong.

cheers!!!
 
Messages
646
Likes
275
You know what, i think WPI should bugger the establishment, just do their own studies and if other groups come online with them then good. I dont think any govt bodies are going to find any positives no matter what. WPI need to do treatment trials with retro positive patients and see what outcomes come from them. The govt has too much to lose by saying cfs has an infectious cause. We are only going to go forward with private organisations like WPI funded by cfs groups/patients etc. I dont think we need govt approval to say cfs is real, when WPI start seeing people recover, govt bodies wont have a choice but to admitt their wrong.
The difficulty with that position is that to date WPI have been funded with $1 million of Government Grant, if the US Government is not persuaded that the WPI is pursuing valuable research, then the major share of funding on which WPI has so far relied is not going to be available.

IVI
 

currer

Senior Member
Messages
1,409
Likes
861
Before we get too paranoid, remember that the US govt is putting money into XMRV research. I was encouraged to hear Ian Lipkin on yesterday's Pathogens in the Blood webinar. I felt he was a man of integrity and we could trust him.
I know we have every right to be angry at how we are treated - and in England there is so far no sign the government is letting up on its plan to psychologise us back to health and work - but this research takes time. I have just listened to Dr Mikovits talk again and I feel sure she will prevail. Her research has much more depth and breadth and cannot possibly be undone by a few silly PCR contamination studies. All the other unbiased academics must realise she is on to something and they do. She gets an encouraging response - in America at least. Britain is a different matter. She is right about the politics here - my God it is disgusting.
I'm going to give some more money to the WPI!
 

Enid

Senior Member
Messages
3,309
Likes
868
Location
UK
Quite agree currer - politics here disgusting - and no hope except US and a few other dedicated ME/CFS researchers - anywhere but the UK.
 

omerbasket

Senior Member
Messages
510
Likes
13
Regarding clinical trials, the WPI might get funding from drug companies, so they won't neccessarily need the government's money (actually, for clinical trials there is a good chance that they won't need it, I think).
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Messages
7,371
Likes
2,125
Location
Arizona in winter & W. North America otherwise
Regarding clinical trials, the WPI might get funding from drug companies, so they won't neccessarily need the government's money (actually, for clinical trials there is a good chance that they won't need it, I think).
I believe most clinical trials are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. The WPI thought GSK would start clinical trials in six months (after the Science paper) but GSK decided to put them aside for the time being and focused on proving XMRV was there. Of course they have an immense amount to gain if XMRV works out.
 
Messages
877
Likes
85
I believe most clinical trials are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. The WPI thought GSK would start clinical trials in six months (after the Science paper) but GSK decided to put them aside for the time being and focused on proving XMRV was there. Of course they have an immense amount to gain if XMRV works out.
Disagree 100% that GlaxoWelcome has an immense amount to gain. I think if XMRV prooves out, they have a lot to loose.
 
Messages
877
Likes
85
I'll say this. First of all, I believe that The WPI and FDA are not making it up. They found a real retrovirus and they have done careful research that is accurate.

I also believe the research that shows XMRV was created in a laboratory(a so called contaminant) and the question is how that XMRV got in to the human population. I think vaccines is the most likely scenario considering there is research that shows retroviruses can be transmitted through vaccines.

GSK makes vaccines. I do not buy it was an accident they let XMRV in to the vaccines. I have said it before. There is retorvirus studies going back to the early 80's, if not earlier. Since at least the 90's gene therapy has been researched. To me, Gene therapy seems much more advanced that simply identifying a retrovirus. (GEne therapy is using a retorvirus to modify DNA to cure disease.) I think once Defreitas provided research showing that CFS was caused by a retrovirus, it should have been easily detected even back in the 90's, if the CDC choosed to do so.

I think GSK may have intentionally allowed the retrovirus into vaccines to help slow people down, to make them more controllable, and to reduce the burden on the world's resources.

So for GSK to actually WANT to find XMRV seems riduculous considering everything the spin doctors, media, the CDC, and the MRC have done to avoid using good scientific methods for duplicating and verifying the WPI's findings. (Not drying the dried blood spot study or the 4 might be contamination papers)

It's hard to believe I know. But I can't seen why epidemics can be allowed to go on for 20+ years while releasing bogus information like that Reeves and Wessley release and the way it is SPUN throught the world in the coorporate controlled news media.

Finally, I believe that only very few people in the world know about the scheme, and most of the scientific people are manipulated with other rational. Like we need to protect the insurance companies or we need to protect the vaccine makers.

That's my position and have yet to see any evidence that the CAA, CDC, MRC, governments, news media, have acted in any other fashion than I have described. Show me proof and I might change my mind.
 

Riley

Senior Member
Messages
177
Likes
462
I think GSK may have intentionally allowed the retrovirus into vaccines to help slow people down, to make them more controllable, and to reduce the burden on the world's resources.
No offense, but really? You honestly believe this?
 
Messages
877
Likes
85
No offense, but really? You honestly believe this?
Absolutely. Keep an open mind and look at how the whole CFS, Autism, Lyme, Flouride in the water situation has been handled for the last 30 years. Look at how everybody bitches and moans on a daily basis about the garbage psychobabble research coming out of the CDC and MRC on a daily basis. While doing ZERO biooligical research and doing nothing but lips service for almost 30 years.

It is no accident what the CDC and MRC has been orchestrating the charade they have been for so many years while a pandemic strikes.

Pretty dang ingenious if you ask me, casue the XMRV problem(sick people) then profit from selling them the useless drugs. Best explanation I can come up with.

What is your explanation for why there ahs been so much resistance into real research and treatments for so long?