Remember the Leaked Mikovits Abstract Last April?

[Stone]

Does anyone remember the abstract from a Judy Mikovits paper that was "leaked" from a conference in Prague last spring? Someone posted it here and it was subsequently pulled because the paper has not been published yet. I did manage to get a copy of it before it was pulled. I have no intention of posting it, of course, but I had hoped/expected to see this paper or something about it at the XMRV conference last week. I haven't had time to go over all the abstracts but I'm assuming it's not there because if it were, it would be making quite a stir I would think.

It mentions finding XMRV at a prevalence of over 95% (Dr. Mikovits has stated this publicly on several occasions and it's on the WPI website in the Q&A section). It also discusses the causation issue as well.

I'm wondering if anyone knows for sure what's happening with this paper if anything. Does anyone have any speculations as to if, when and where this paper might be published?

 

[Stone]

Really? No one has any idea what may or may not be happening with this paper? No one cares to venture a guess? If this paper proves what the abstract says it will prove then this will be HUGE for us, as it goes a VERY long way toward PROVING causation and ups the number of positives to 95% in CFS, which to me is the golden egg we've been waiting for the goose to lay, isn't it?

 

[Esther12]

To me 95% seems suspicously high. It seems strange to me that one viruse would be behind 95% of CFS cases... but that could just be an intellectual inertia from past beliefs (which were never really based upon much good evidence). It would be good to know what's happening with it, and if there are any more WPI papers due soon.

 

[Stone]

To me 95% seems suspicously high. It seems strange to me that one viruse would be behind 95% of CFS cases... but that could just be an intellectual inertia from past beliefs (which were never really based upon much good evidence). It would be good to know what's happening with it, and if there are any more WPI papers due soon.

I share your skepticism about the 95% number, but then again, look at AIDS. How many people with AIDS are HIV positive? I would venture a guess that it's at least 95% and AIDS expresses itself differently in different people with a host of symptoms, including cancer, so who's to say? It will be interesting to see if this high number of positives comes out in any studies, especially now that they're doing serology assays. HIV is tested by serology now. When you get a standard HIV test, they aren't testing for the actual virus but for your serological immune response to it. It will be interesting to see how many serological positives VIPDx is finding. And also, how this number may change as these tests are perfected as more is uncovered about this family of viruses. I'm also eager to see if direct causation can be proven or not. This is a big hurdle. As I understand it, causation of AIDS by HIV was not established until clinical trials of antiretrovirals were undertaken, and when the people with AIDS were treated with agents that are effective against HIV and began to recover, it was then deduced that HIV is indeed the culprit behind AIDS. Lots of watching and waiting ahead of us I think. I also would be amazed if researchers did start antiretroviral trials with CFS patients who are XMRV (or HGRV) positive, because so many other scientists still do not understand how severely disabled we are and don't even begin to comprehend the degree of suffering we endure and would not agree that the risk does not outweigh the possible benefit, although many ME/CFS patients would beg to differ and are ready for clinical antiretroviral trials now, and I can't say that I blame them a bit.

 

[eric_s]

I've never heard about this paper before, but i've heard the 95% figure. At the XMRV workshop then they (a Mikovits paper) mentioned 80% or something around there, i think, and i was a bit surprised and wondered what had happened to the 95%.

 

[Stone]

I've never heard about this paper before, but i've heard the 95% figure. At the XMRV workshop then they (a Mikovits paper) mentioned 80% or something around there, i think, and i was a bit surprised and wondered what had happened to the 95%.

Yes, and not only does the abstract cite a prevalence rate of 95%, it also contains language that goes toward causation of CFS by XMRV based on immune signatures.

 

[bakercape]

word to explain the 95%

--cohort--

 

[Stone]

--cohort--

Sure, it's quite possibly the answer, but this was an abstract for a paper, which I presume had already been written and was awaiting publication, so if that's the case, then cohort selection wouldn't be a factor unless I'm missing something (which is frighteningly common for me, te he). I'm beginning to think that the paper that went with this abstract may have been scrapped and the data is being used in a perhaps better or different study from a different angle or some such thing. All pure speculation on my part, of course. And maybe additional patients could have been added to the original cohort which could/would conceivably change the prevalence rate either up or down, down being the most likely I should think.

 

[ukxmrv]

Stone,

I don't remember the leaked paper (sorry) but the 95% figure was used by Dr Mikovits when she spoke to the Independent newspaper in London or they reported it as such

(start)
But the senior author of the study, Judy Mikovits, director of research at the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nevada, said further blood tests have revealed that more than 95 per cent of patients with the syndrome have antibodies to the virus – indicating they have been infected with XMRV, which can lie dormant within a patient's DNA. "With those numbers, I would say, yes we've found the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. We also have data showing that the virus attacks the human immune system," said Dr Mikovits. She is testing a further 500 blood samples gathered from chronic fatigue patients diagnosed in London. "The same percentages are holding up," she said.
(end)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-science-found-the-cause-of-me-1799944.html

 

[Stone]

Yes, she has used the 95% figure in a number of places at different times: in the abstract, the piece you quoted above, in various interviews and it is stated on the WPI website. If the 95% figure does hold up, that itself would go a long way toward proving causation, and the abstract that I copied before it was removed from the forum also contains language to the effect that the immune signature in XMRV infection produces a similar immune signature to that seen in ME/CFS, and says in so many words that this points to proof of causation as well.