Switzer now finds (some) XMRV in Prostate Cancer

[liquid sky]

Virions bud but those contain RNA. Who tests for DNA is not looking for budding virions.

So they only test for DNA? I am no scientist. I know that Singh has the one picture of a budding virion.

 

[lansbergen]

So they only test for DNA? I am no scientist. I know that Singh has the one picture of a budding virion.

They test for the provirus. That is DNA.

There is at least one picture with a budding virion.

The WPI found that plasma is infectious. To me that means there must have been virions in the plasma. Virions spread the infection by entering other cells.

 

[liquid sky]

So the virus would only be found in the plasma when it is spreading from one cell to another. A virion would bud from one cell and then go into the plasma to spread to another cell and infect it.

They know that this virus has a low replication rate, so there would be times it is found in one patient and others where it might not be detected in the same patient. Didn't WPI go to just antibody tests and culture tests, no PCR?

 

[Bob]

And then there was also the German study (Fischer et al.) that found XMRV in respiratory secretions. Can it be there and not in the blood at all? I mean it must travel through the body somehow... How does it do that, if not through the blood? Unless at some point after the original infection it settles in some places and then does not move at all anymore. Would this be possible?

A bit of info on this here:
http://phoenixrising.me/forums/show...cates-preferentially-in-mucosal-sites-in-vivo

 

[lansbergen]

So the virus would only be found in the plasma when it is spreading from one cell to another. A virion would bud from one cell and then go into the plasma to spread to another cell and infect it.

They know that this virus has a low replication rate, so there would be times it is found in one patient and others where it might not be detected in the same patient. Didn't WPI go to just antibody tests and culture tests, no PCR?

It can spread from cell to cell without going in the blood but if it buds from bloodvessel endothelium into the blood it will be in the plasma.

 

[justinreilly]

I am not a patient and once registered to correct a mistake, so I'll refrain from further comments...

As far as I'm concerned, you can post here, but if you do stuff like call Osler's Web a "shitty conspiracy theory book" don't expect a warm reception.

from virology blog:

RRM 1 week ago in reply to Justin Reilly
As any economist can tell you, it is very much in the interest of the government and the CDC to solve the ME/CFS problem, so I guess that makes their negative findings even more reliable.

Your argument hinges on the idea that CDC is routinely lying about ME/CFS but reading a shitty conspriracy book five times doesn't make is so. Government bodies want to solve this problem

 

[RRM]

As far as I'm concerned, you can post here, but if you do stuff like call Osler's Web a "shitty conspiracy theory book" don't expect a warm reception.

from virology blog:

I think it is not very good form to engage me into these kinds of arguments by quoting stuff from other places out of context. Although it is a free country and you can do as you like, I kindly ask you to not do this again. I always like to debate, but I find that patient forums are not the place for that.

For the record, although many posters from the other forum think (they even "know", which says a lot about their abilities to test hypotheses objectively) that I have sometimes posted on that forum to "troll" (using a "patient" identity), I would never do that. I view a patient forums as just that: a forum for patients.

Anyway, you misrepresent the point I was making. I was posting in response to you stating that (amongst other things) reading a book five times had made you realize that the CDC is anti-science and anti-patient and that this was as crystal clear to you as knowing that the earth is round. Which was in turn used as some kind of argument to show that the CDC had done something "mysterious" by "switching assays" in the BWG, which they then apparently failed to properly cover up as this information ended up in transcripts, powerpoint slides and even in a ScienceMag article for everyone to behold. Covering this up if it were a conspiracy would have been really, really easy by the way.

Also, said the pot to the kettle:

[Cort Johnson] has a financial interests that do not include patients getting treatment if XMRV ends up being the cause.

Justin Reilly and 3 more liked this

Sorry to be sarcastic, but which book did you have to read five times to get to this endorsement? Is it that hard to "just" disagree instead of immediately starting to question the other person's integrity when they fail to hold the same opinion as you? I will stop here, as the irony of it is that me "defending" Cort here will only fuel the crazy theories.

Sorry to you all for this. If you like to discuss this further, please use PM, Justin.

 

[currer]

Hi, RRM,
You are more than welcome to post here, as far as I am concerned, even if you are not a patient.

However, you may need a little education on patient sensitivities.

Most of us have been ill for a long time, with little or no medical care, and have been treated pretty abusively by medical professionals. Most of us have problems getting welfare for our disablement.
We do not usualy get well so our outlook on life and our expectations of what life can offer us are very different from yours.
We face discrimination because of our diagnosis, both from medical professionals and from our families. This history of discrimination has harmed us. Please try to be aware of this. You would not feel as justified attacking a black person or a jewish person for their beliefs, however strange, if you could see that those beliefs were held because of the history of discrimination they had suffered.

It is useful to be a little sensitive and tactful, even if you think some sufferers' beliefs are odd.

Please remember that many people who come here are ill, even bedridden.

PS. Incidentally, to be fair, I ought to thank you for starting this thread, (on Switzer's paper,) which turned out to be very thought-provoking!