Firestormm, thanks for that. For someone who says they aren't on top of the science and need help getting it explained, you seem to have a good grasp of the technical details of the research, well above my pay grade I'm afraid. I could never have read the above paper in such a short time and made a qualified criticism as you have, especially with me/cfs.
Not sure why you keep hammering away at Lombardi. Maybe ease off there, makes you sound like you are doing PR for the HGRV denialists.
You are most welcome. Of course I don't consider myself a 'denialist' though I have been called that often enough. And it does take a lot of effort to read such papers which is why my 'in-tray' is overflowing and I have to pick and choose to some extent and this study - following up on Onlamoon was I felt important. It also provided a (what I considered) useful resume of XMRV to date.
In my own little world I think there are three parts to this if you like:
1. The main one having been established by Lombardi and that related directly to my condition. It was about XMRV being found in the blood of patients to a startlingly high amount. And so as I see it this whole 2 year tale thus far has been about Lombardi and trying to replicate that association.
And then from that we had the whole 'commentary' from scientists and those associated with that study, all the conferences, the interviews, the media-storm, etc. and all the analysis and interpretation and 'spin' of what was said as well as the paper itself and those that resulted from it.
I mean it has been a mammoth undertaking and for a patient especially one hell of a lot to even try to keep on top of and I think too much has been speculated upon by those key players that has led to frustration and hurt among patients even to 'fallings out'. But this was for me the most important part about XMRV/MLVs and now (as in at this moment) that association has not been upheld.
When it comes to the 'Lipkin Study' those that have been quoted as calling it definitive are I believe referring to the associations proposed by Lombardi (and Lo) to my condition. As this is the only fully funded (and pretty much now spent) research looking at XMRV/MLVs and my condition - then I also regard it as being the 'final' word on Lombardi (and Lo) and indeed all those other papers that appeared to support that association.
However, and as I have said, I am very much interested in learning about how this study was put together and what will happen as a result - probably more so that what if anything it 'finds' in relation to XMRV/MLVs to be honest - because I don't think it will find anything significant.
2. XMRV in it's own right as a novel gammaretrovirus. Novel meaning 'new' obviously but also not understood. And so that gets my interest too. But to a lesser extent and unless future research again attempts to link it to my condition - my own interest will wane. I understand that in science the research is only as good as the last and that science marches on and so am perfectly aware that someone could demonstrate that XMRV does indeed play a role in the causation of human disease and who knows? It could one day be linked to my condition but until that happens I don't think I will be all that interested.
3. MLVs in general. I do 'get' people's interest in this broader topic really I do (or maybe I think I do?). However, we are again talking about the subject in isolation of my condition and so for me I can't get into it until and unless it does get linked.
I do trust science and I know it might sound lame to some but there we go. There are some things - especially now - I acknowledge I haven't a hope of understanding or indeed learning about. But what bugs me is spurous links to my condition. So I'll leave it to science I think and when a paper is published whose conclusions appear to link in with ME in a more readily identifiable way - then I will push aside other things and take a closer look.
That to me sounds like you are spinning it. Something may well be turned down for political reasons - one of the MulV researchers has recently commented on that on her blog. They ARE finding something and that something sounds very interesting but are thinking twice about even submitting or talking about it in this climate. Nothing whatsoever to do with Science, everything to do with Politics.
Hi Natasa,
Whatever. If a paper links MLVs to my condition I will take a look. That scientists are experiencing difficulty with funding - well what's new?
re means by which MuLVs evade the action of APOBEC3, in the absence of Vif
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950561/?tool=pubmed
Firestormm, if you have so many scientist friends to tell you how to interpret papers and what to think, why are you on here discussing with laics? What are you hoping to learn from patients here that you cannot learn from scientists directly?
Do you know how many papers are quoted from on forums like this and blogs? How many patients cherry pick and seem to think 'so and so' is majorly important to the study of my condition? If I asked my 'scientist friends' to help me understand all of them - I wouldn't have any friends left.
They help with the complex stuff - you know that gets posted as 'evidence' - or if they themselves have posted a paper and I don't understand a part of it (not always relating to 'CFS') then they will help me also.
In the main though I plod. I am a plodder. I select a paper that seems interesting after a read of the extract and I try to obtain the full version (and yes this does sometimes come from those 'friends').
Then I plod. I have an 'in-tray' full of such papers - that appear 'interesting' but those that are more interesting that others I read and try to understand.
Then I start a thread to see if others think they are interesting - or join an already established thread - and posit opinion in an attempt to understand more.
It is 'interesting'. It helps break the monotony of my existence. It stimulates my addled brain. I hope for a debate on the subject of the thread.
Remember what a debate is?
