Retrovirology Publishes Five Papers on XMRV and Contamination

[Jemal]

Surely the WPI and Lo/Alter will react to these studies?
Basically that press release is saying their laboratories are contaminated or that their research is faulty...

 

[free at last]

Here they show that some type of primers seem to also pick up contamination. I don't have a problem with that. It's the primers Coffin/Huber used. I don't know wheter the WPI, Alter/Lo, Hanson used those too. Would be interesting to know.
They say that XMRV doesn't acquire diversity in patients. Lo et al. demonstrated exactly the opposite, if i remember correctly...
They conclude that XMRV is not a human pathogen at all. That's pretty bold, i think.

I don't have a problem with those negative papers, the only thing i don't like is that they are all published simultaneously and that there seems to be reluctance to publish positive ones. Retrovirology seems to publish more or less anything, as long as it's negative. I find it very hard to understand that.
To be honest this smells rotten to me.

Either way, the others are continuing their work, so we don't have to care about those papers too much, i think. In the end they will help bringing out the truth, because they provide some new information, unless they lead to funds being cut or people turning away from research into XMRV. Those papers will probably make the authors of positive papers want to prove they were right, which will help us.

Hi Eric if those primers have been seen as suscpect being used by Huber and Coffin one would think ( hope ) that was being monitered by the other groups, And precautions being used about those primers, I hope Judy makes a statement about this. would all the 4 methods being used by the wpi be affected by this, sorry for my lack of knowledge.I do think these kind of papers do real damage, and if there conclusions are not definative because possibly other primers are being used by Alter/Lo Wpi, then this would suggest some just cant wait to kill this research stone dead.

Im all for the truth, but if the truth is distorted to back up opinions based on research that is not definative across the board, then that just becomes bias.I hope those that have the knowledge about these methods can tell us whats happening here, as a response is needed, in the way wessley responded so quickly to pour cold water on the science study.But of course from our veiwpoint.which although is hopeful for a answer, is still not as biased as that group
I cant belive its as simple as this group trys to make it appear. Hope Judy responds soon. It causes stress on those that really need hope, and if the science is not definative then they really shouldnt be trying to make it appear as such, causing untold stress on patients, and damage to the research, which is already facing a up hill struggle, with the negative papers and those, that refuse to belive ME/CFS couldf be anything other than a psychiatric disorder. Please respond to this guys with your knowledge. I feel down already i guess others are too

 

[Jemal]

It's a weird coincidence that these 5 studies are all published at once I guess...

 

[eric_s]

Hey Aruschima

I'm back in Switzerland now, so even colder...

When i go back to Spain, probably in January, i'll go to the Canary Islands or Alicante or Valencia. The Canaries have a great climate...

I'm really in a hurry to go out, so i can't say much about that press release. But it's really quite strong language.
I don't mind that. Better they say it in this way, than always making assumptions. Now they have taken a clear position and there will be a response. Like this, we will get to the truth faster. This text will force the authors of positive papers to reply, i guess, and that's what's good for us. One side will be wrong, the other one right.
Bring it on :tongue:

 

[Marco]

Good

I'm glad to see these 5? studies published.

I much prefer that suggestions of contamination are on paper and in the open where they can be discussed rather than the persisting vague innuendo we have had to date.

Once refuted (if this is the case) there will be little mileage left in the contamination argument and we can all move on.

 

[Jemal]

The BBC is quick to pick up this story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12041687

Somehow it looks like negative studies are more easily getting into the press. I don't fully understand the concept behind it. Maybe making bold statements helps.

 

[leaves]

Not a coincidence: scientific journals like to have a 'theme '
For retrivirology that is contamination and xmrv this time.

 

[Wildcat]

Not at all surpirised at the BBC reporting the negative studies and contamination studies. The BBC has always been quick to report anything that denies that ME is organic and serious. The BBC has done a lot of free advertising for the fraudulent NLP con Lighting Process that claims to cure ME by shouting STOP at your symptoms whilst standing on a piece of oc colored cardboard. The BBC is funded by television liece fee payers - ie funded by the British public and is not allowed to do advertising so the Lighting Process ads are disguised as human interest 'ME recovery' stories.

The BBC is not our friend.. and never has been.

 

[Esther12]

I've got to admit, it feels like a bit of a blow. We'll have to see how it all works out.

I wish they'd had one of the pro-XMRV researchers provide a response.

 

[Jemal]

I've got to admit, it feels like a bit of a blow. We'll have to see how it all works out.

I wish they'd had one of the pro-XMRV researchers provide a response.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. There are definitely two sides to this story and most journalists would try and get a comment from both sides.

 

[Jemal]

Not a coincidence: scientific journals like to have a 'theme '
For retrivirology that is contamination and xmrv this time.

Ok, that makes sense.

 

[aruschima]

Hey Aruschima

I'm back in Switzerland now, so even colder...

When i go back to Spain, probably in January, i'll go to the Canary Islands or Alicante or Valencia. The Canaries have a great climate...

I'm really in a hurry to go out, so i can't say much about that press release. But it's really quite strong language.
I don't mind that. Better they say it in this way, than always making assumptions. Now they have taken a clear position and there will be a response. Like this, we will get to the truth faster. This text will force the authors of positive papers to reply, i guess, and that's what's good for us. One side will be wrong, the other one right.
Bring it on :tongue:

Brrrrrrrrrr, freeezing cold.

Well , I am afraid the ball will stop rolling. We just started to get some recognition, the ball was rolling and if this is not countered immediately with some real strong statements and action on our part, we are fu.....d.
This is not just about the science.....! This is about getting our disease validated, getting funds, getting benefits, getting special needs education for our children, getting help ......... getting not buried alive for another 25 years !

That the BBC immediately picks this up (or are fed with this news), is an indication what is to come. There are certainly strong groups in the UK who work behind the scene....against us !

 

[urbantravels]

We've barely got our eyes open yet on the West Coast, it's 7:30 in the morning here. So Dr. Mikovits will have a nice wake-up call before she gets a chance to respond. Really want to see Harvey Alter, Ila Singh responses - also get some of our science-heads to carefully check the new papers against Ila Singh's "how to design a study" paper.

 

[Jemal]

We've barely got our eyes open yet on the West Coast, it's 7:30 in the morning here. So Dr. Mikovits will have a nice wake-up call before she gets a chance to respond. Really want to see Harvey Alter, Ila Singh responses - also get some of our science-heads to carefully check the new papers against Ila Singh's "how to design a study" paper.

If Dr. Mikovits gets the news that is... not sure how quickly she picks up things like this?
Also a reaction from them might take a while, especially if it's an official reaction, sent to the Retrovirology (I think Lo/Alter did send official reactions to other publications in the past?)

I do agree with Aruschima that a strong reaction might be necessary, as these publications are potentially very damaging to our cause. Now, I am of course still an XMRV believer. If it truly is contamination, then it's all over. But I don't think it's so black & white.

 

[Bob]

I've had a quick look at these five studies, and most of them don't tell us anything new... Only the Retrovirology study by Hue et al seems to bring up significant new research findings.

This one, by Sato et al, tests a commercial PCR kit, and finds contamination by mouse DNA...
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-7-110.pdf
But they do not find XMRV or Alter's PMRV, only similar endogenous mouse retroviruses...
Alter tested for mouse viruses and mouse DNA, and I assume that Judy has as well, although i can't remember if she has.
This study doesn't tell us much new... Just that researchers need to eliminate mouse viruses from any findings they make.

This one, by Oakes et al (includes Huber and Coffin), is old news, and just confirms that they detected mouse contamination, and it warns researchers to always check for mouse DNA and mouse viruses...
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-7-109.pdf

This one, by Robinson et al (inludes McClure and Coffin) (Coffin's name seems to popping up a lot!), is similar to Huber's paper, in that it recommends that researchers always check for mouse contamination.
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-7-108.pdf

This one by Smith, seems to be purely a commentary on the Retrovirology paper by Hue et al (see below)...
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-7-112.pdf

This one, by Hue et al, is the most significant paper and demands closer inspection... It's the only paper of the five that has the potential to challenge the findings to date (it actually seems quite refreshing to have a serious contamination challenge for a change)... I'll have a close look at it later... I don't know how the science stands up without reading it carefully.
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/pdf/1742-4690-7-111.pdf
The conclusion to the paper does not seem to be as conclusive as the commentaries are reporting it, and the paper does not appear to address the issue of human anti-bodies to XMRV.

Disease-associated XMRV sequences are consistent with laboratory contamination

Conclusions
We provide several independent lines of evidence that XMRV detected by sensitive PCR methods in patient samples is the likely result of PCR contamination with mouse DNA and that the described clones of XMRV arose from the tumour cell line 22Rv1, which was probably infected with XMRV during xenografting in mice. We propose that XMRV might not be a genuine human pathogen.

http://www.retrovirology.com/content/7/1/111

 

[Jemal]

Reuters has also picked up the story that ME/CFS is not caused by XMRV:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6BJ36I20101220

 

[bullybeef]

That the BBC immediately picks this up (or are fed with this news), is an indication what is to come. There are certainly strong groups in the UK who work behind the scene....against us !

This Prof. Tim Peto whom was interviewed for the BBC is another dodgy fellow:

http://www.bmj.com/content/312/7022/22.abstract

Why were ME/CFS patients given CBT in a infectious disease dept? Talk about the BBC interviewing the biased for comment!

BB

 

[Wildcat]

.

Bob wrote: "I've had a quick look at these five studies, and most of them don't tell us anything new... Only the Retrovirology study by Hue et al seems to bring up significant new research findings."


So its mostly old and stale news. Unfortunately the media don't care about that - they've got
The Story - 'ME/CFS is not caused by XMRV'. Shame that Retrovirology can't do a themed depth discussion of the convulutions of the "is it or isn't it contamination" issue.

 

[eric_s]

Brrrrrrrrrr, freeezing cold.

Well , I am afraid the ball will stop rolling. We just started to get some recognition, the ball was rolling and if this is not countered immediately with some real strong statements and action on our part, we are fu.....d.
This is not just about the science.....! This is about getting our disease validated, getting funds, getting benefits, getting special needs education for our children, getting help ......... getting not buried alive for another 25 years !

That the BBC immediately picks this up (or are fed with this news), is an indication what is to come. There are certainly strong groups in the UK who work behind the scene....against us !

I don't believe the ball will stop rolling. Not now. The BWG is scheduled and i don't think they will cancel it. Neither the Lipkin study. Plus remeber what Dr. Alter said on the BPAC meeting (if that was correctly reported, no offense meant). That ME/CFS is serious, has viral characteristics and must be investigated.
I don't see what we as patients could do now, because only scientific studies can counter this, i guess. And i'm pretty confident this will happen. What the result will be is of course impossible for me to predict. Nevertheless it's not the headlines one likes to see, no doubt abot that.
But again, i think Alter/Lo reported mutation in the MRV genetic sequences they have found, so i'm waiting to see how they will react to Hue et al.
And also this could not explain the antibody findings.

I'm not happy about this, but i think it will bring movement. And if the authors of the positive studies can counter, their case will be stronger than before.

If indeed it was to turn out that the contamination theory is true, then i see a danger that interest would decrease. Then it would be up to us, to make sure things continue to go forward. We can do it, if we get everybody with ME/CFS on board, worldwide. I believe we can do much more than we have done up to now.

 

[Jemal]

Do we know when Ila Singh's work will be published?