Symon Wessley and Myra McClure XMRV Study--Investigation into the PCR Serology CFS

[Mya Symons]

Here they go again. Is this a new one or do we already have it somewhere?


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017592


Investigation into the Presence of and Serological Response to XMRV in CFS Patients
The novel human gammaretrovirus xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), originally described in prostate cancer, has also been implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). When later reports failed to confirm the link to CFS, they were often criticised for not using the conditions described in the original study. Here, we revisit our patient cohort to investigate the XMRV status in those patients by means of the original PCR protocol which linked the virus to CFS. In addition, sera from our CFS patients were assayed for the presence of xenotropic virus envelope protein, as well as a serological response to it. The results further strengthen our contention that there is no evidence for an association of XMRV with CFS, at least in the UK.


ArticleMetricsRelated ContentComments: 0.To add a note, highlight some text. Hide notes
Make a general comment
Jump to

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
References
Otto Erlwein1, Mark J. Robinson1, Steve Kaye1, Gillian Wills1, Shozo Izui2, Simon Wessely3, Jonathan Weber1, Anthony Cleare3, David Collier4, Myra O. McClure1*

1 Jefferiss Research Trust Laboratories, Section of Infectious Diseases, Wright-Fleming Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 2 Department of Pathology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Camberwell, London, United Kingdom, 4 Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

Abstract Top
The novel human gammaretrovirus xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), originally described in prostate cancer, has also been implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). When later reports failed to confirm the link to CFS, they were often criticised for not using the conditions described in the original study. Here, we revisit our patient cohort to investigate the XMRV status in those patients by means of the original PCR protocol which linked the virus to CFS. In addition, sera from our CFS patients were assayed for the presence of xenotropic virus envelope protein, as well as a serological response to it. The results further strengthen our contention that there is no evidence for an association of XMRV with CFS, at least in the UK.

Citation: Erlwein O, Robinson MJ, Kaye S, Wills G, Izui S, et al. (2011) Investigation into the Presence of and Serological Response to XMRV in CFS Patients. PLoS ONE 6(3): e17592. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017592

Editor: Kim Hasenkrug, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, United States of America


Received: November 26, 2010; Accepted: January 26, 2011; Published: March 9, 2011

Copyright: 2011 Erlwein et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: m.mcclure@imperial.ac.uk

 

[Jemal]

I created a thread about this study a few days ago:
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...-Serological-Response-to-XMRV-in-CFS-Patients

 

[Esther12]

Thanks Mya and Jemal.

I guess these negative studies are getting less interest as they pile up.

I don't think I'm expecting much from XMRV anymore, but I want to hear the responses from the pro-XMRV camp and Lipkin to all these negative ones.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

And again, why is Wessely, a psychiatrist, involved with this? isn't this the province of virologists, microbiologists and folk who have no vested interests in the results?
As since the proff' has for nearly 3 decades stated this is psychological problem, proof of a physical basis would be deeply embarassing at best, more likely it would destroy his reputation completely as it would mean he is very largely responsible for 17 million victims of a hellish disease not getting adequate research, treatment and respect: that is a "competing interest" is it not, hm?

that is speculation and comment on obvious facts, not insults.

 

[Enid]

Quite agree Silverblade - 3 psychiatrists - looks decidedly "partisan". And Retrovirology not their specialist field.

 

[currer]

Yes, this latest Wessely study has elicited little response... it's all too predictable.

I'm waiting for the more interesting science which I am sure is coming soon from the other side.

 

[Andrew]

UK says they have done real replication study

Investigation into the Presence of and Serological
Response to XMRV in CFS Patients

Otto Erlwein1, Mark J. Robinson1, Steve Kaye1, Gillian Wills1, Shozo Izui2, Simon Wessely3, Jonathan
Weber1, Anthony Cleare3, David Collier4, Myra O. McClure1*

PLoS ONE
March 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | e17592

The novel human gammaretrovirus xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), originally described in prostate cancer, has also been implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). When later reports failed to confirm the link to CFS, they were often criticised for not using the conditions described in the original study. Here, we revisit our patient cohort to investigate the XMRV status in those patients by means of the original PCR protocol which linked the virus to CFS. In addition, sera from our CFS patients were assayed for the presence of xenotropic virus envelope protein, as well as a serological response to it. The results further strengthen our contention that there is no evidence for an association of XMRV with CFS, at least in the UK.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017592

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Investigation into the Presence of and Serological
Response to XMRV in CFS Patients

Otto Erlwein1, Mark J. Robinson1, Steve Kaye1, Gillian Wills1, Shozo Izui2, Simon Wessely3, Jonathan
Weber1, Anthony Cleare3, David Collier4, Myra O. McClure1*

PLoS ONE
March 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | e17592



http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017592

OMG! They used the same patient cohort!!!

Sorry- should explain myself. They used the same patient cohort as the ERLWEIN et al paper, NOT Lombardi et al!

This isn't a replication at all. All they've done as far as the cohort is concerned is rehash their post on Plosone in response to critiques about the cohort.

How funny.

 

[Mark]

They just can't write a paper without adding a line of transparently illogical bullshit at the end, can they?

The results further strengthen our contention that there is no evidence for an association of XMRV with CFS, at least in the UK.

How can not finding something "strengthen a contention" that there is "no evidence" that it is there, when other researchers have already reported finding it?

It can't, of course, and endlessly repeating that "there is no evidence" is even more dishonest where there is such evidence (at the least, the WPI's UK study - unpublished, but reported) than it is in the typical use of the phrase "there is no evidence" - as a political mantra to justify blocking all investigations into a subject in an attempt to ensure that there never will be any evidence.

With this sort of behaviour, these researchers have already utterly destroyed their own credibility as objective scientists, but of far more concern is they way they are destroying the credibility of the scientific establishment as a whole and of the scientific process itself, in the eyes of the public and the patient community. We may not all understand every depth of the scientific papers, but when we see the illogicality and unjustified conclusions in the abstracts, accompanied by aggressive media spin and manipulation of information, we can only conclude that these are people whose findings cannot be trusted given their evident dishonesty and bias.

 

[SOC]

How can not finding something "strengthen a contention" that there is "no evidence" that it is there, when other researchers have already reported finding it?

It can't, of course, and endlessly repeating that "there is no evidence" is even more dishonest where there is such evidence (at the least, the WPI's UK study - unpublished, but reported) than it is in the typical use of the phrase "there is no evidence" - as a political mantra to justify blocking all investigations into a subject in an attempt to ensure that there never will be any evidence.

Exactly! It is supposed to be taught in middle school science, repeated in high school, and beaten into the brains of college science students -- You can't prove a negative. Makes me wonder what some of these people were doing during science class, because it's hard to believe they were listening.

So, in case they're listening -- here's a quick Science 101 lesson:

You do NOT prove something does not exist by not finding it. All you can prove is that you can't find it by the methods you used. It is as likely that it exists and you can't find it as it is that it doesn't exist.

If someone else finds [whatever] when you can't, their result demonstrates that [whatever] CAN be found by some method UNLESS it is proved that their method, when replicated (that means exactly repeated, not similarly repeated) by multiple labs cannot find [whatever].

If multiple labs cannot replicate the findings, the condition returns to: [Whatever] may exist and may not exist -- we don't know. Even failure of replication does not prove that [whatever] does not exist. It simply returns us to the condition that [whatever] may or may not exist, and we can't find it with all the methods we've tried so far.

Summary re: XMRV
As far as I can see, no true replication studies have been done, therefore the existence of XMRV stands. Evidence has arisen that suggests the possibility that the methods used by Silverman, Lombardi etal, and Alter/Lo may have included a previously unknown contaminant, but that contaminant is XMRV itself. So that does not disprove the existence of XMRV, but may call into question whether XMRV is found in PC and ME/CFS. However, until it is established that the Silverman, Lombardi et al and Alter/Lo labs were all contaminated and that the contaminant got into all their samples, the hypothesis that XMRV has a correlation with PC and ME/CFS stands.

"It doesn't exist because we didn't find it" my azz.

 

[toddm1960]

They're still on page one of the playbook, present an avalanche of studies showing no cennection, dry up the funding and the new retrovirus dies on the vine.

 

[Enid]

Rather over publicised the two of them - (UK bias smitten with cosyness and egos). Now let's hear something constructive from McClure other than all her negative research. But of course that will not happen whilst these hold sway and only seek to discredit and not embark on genuine research of their own.

 

[Doogle]

I was intrigued by this sentence toward the end of the article, "Our serological data are consistent with the idea that XMRV may be present in the human population at some level [14], [16]." That doesn't sound consistent with contamination. If it is present at some level, then why are they finding zero background levels in ME/CFS?

 

[SilverbladeTE]

If it is present at some level, then why are they finding zero background levels in ME/CFS?

'Cause they couldn't find their arseholes with GPS and a laser pointer, perhaps?