Science article - McClure again & 2 positive studies at the conference?

[V99]

I know this was posted elsewhere, but there are a couple of interesting bits I thought should be highlighted.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/08/second-paper-supports-viral-link.html

Part of the problem, skeptics say, is that the researchers didn't exactly replicate the Science paper. XMRV is a so-called xenotropic murine virus, which means it can no longer enter mouse cells but can infect cells of other species. (Murine means "from mice.") The researchers in the PNAS paper say the viral sequences they find are more diverse than that and resemble more closely the so-called polytropic viruses, which is why they adopted the term MLV-related virus, for murine leukemia virus. "Let's be clear: This is another virus. They did not confirm [Mikovits's] results," says retrovirologist Myra McClure of ICL, a co-author of one of the four negative studies.

Still, "in the grand scheme of things," the viral sequence found in the PNAS paper closely resembles those of XMRV, says Celia Witten, the director of FDA's Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, who was not an author of the paper herself but spoke on Lo's behalf. Witten adds that the data "support" the Science paper. Mikovitswho is "delighted" by the new papersays the difference is not important. In as-yet-unpublished results, her group finds more genetic diversity in the virus as well, she says.

Many of the main players in the controversy plan to attend a workshop organized by NIH on 7 and 8 September. Mikovits, who is on the scientific committee, says she has seen the abstracts of two presentations confirming her findings. "I think it will be fun," she says.

Two new studies!!!

 

[Quilp]

Yes, 'let's be clear' McClure, a '1000% sure' was the quote wasn't it ? The only thing contaminating is your slavish support for Wessely. Give it up old girl, this is getting embarrassing.

Mark

 

[Sunshine]

Thanks V99 for raising these points.

LOL Mark! I wonder how she could be 1000% sure after no XMRV replication study was done at the time she said that? Most unfortunate choice of words.

Note that MLV's mutate, like HIV demonstrates. As a virologist, how does McClure not know this, or is she being paid to be ignorant?

I see Mikovits' forthcoming study, MLV's mutated also.

''Mikovits—who is "delighted" by the new paper—says the difference is not important. In as-yet-unpublished results, her group finds more genetic diversity in the virus as well, she says.''

Which means it's spreading in humans.........

 

[Mark]

I think McClure has promised not to do any more research in this area, yes? Oh dear...bad career move that.

 

[V99]

:tear::tear::tear:

 

[RustyJ]

"Let's be clear: This is another virus. They did not confirm [Mikovits's] results," says retrovirologist Myra McClure of ICL, a co-author of one of the four negative studies.

When does it start getting unethical. Is there anyone out there still defending McClure's scientific standing?

 

[V99]

"Let's be clear: This is another virus. They did not confirm [Mikovits's] results," says retrovirologist Myra McClure of ICL, a co-author of one of the four negative studies.

Lo said it did, are you listening McSure (Adams nickname)

 

[Sean]

Wouldn't want to be in McClure's shoes right now. Or ever.

Bet she is seriously regretting having anything to do with Wessely. Love to be a fly on the wall at their next private meeting.

 

[alex3619]

Sure, McSure, sure your sure?

Lo said it did, are you listening McSure (Adams nickname)

 

[Mya Symons]

I don't understand why some docs and/or scientists are so confused about the finding of new strains. Doesn't HIV change into something completely new each time it replicates? This is one of the ways it hides from the immune system. Why is it so hard to believe that XMRV related viruses do the same. They are retroviruses.