The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
45
I would like to add that this..

Professor Myra McClure, one of the Imperial College London investigators, said: "We are confident that our results show there is no link between XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome, at least in the UK."
..is a shockingly unscientific statement. And I've seen a lot of doozies over the years. But at such an early stage of research into a new area with uncertainty about cohort selection, epidemiology, and testing protocols, with the knowledge that multiple studies are underway internationally, this is about as unscientific and politically dangerous a statement as a researcher could make -- to the BBC no less! Why would they risk it? I can't figure it out...
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,347
"Etiological theories for CFS abound but none are established. Some of these theories are clinically unhelpful whatever their scientific merits. Thus, the belief that symptoms are due to a persistent viral infection of muscle may or may not be true but more importantly is clinically unhelpful."

I'm not sure this is someone I'd trust to run a study to see if I have a persistant viral infection of muscle.

(I've got to admit though, I've not read the full paper that someone here quoted this from yet - if anyone has a copy I'd love to see it.)

Even if Wesseley was using the loosest definition of CFS, you'd expect some patients to be suffering from XMRV. Even with a healthy study group you expect a couple. Looks like we're in for a long wait on this.
 
G

George

Guest
Dr. Mikovits Talk

Is it still open for questions for Dr. Mikovits talk on the 22nd? I'm sure she'll address the finding anyway so it's probably no big. Now this is just a rumor from a friend at my local doctors office and could be B.S. but she said the CDC results are in and held up by HHS but would be released around the 12th (for some reason) I had kinda wondered if that's why Dr. Mikovits scheduled her talk for the 22nd. Ya know give time for a few of the preliminary studies to come in and then answer questions.

Seems like there were several studies going on that we didn't know about.:sofa: (my favorite smilie)
 

joyscobby

Senior Member
Messages
156
Likes
13
Will have to wait and see when published but unless they tested people from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales they cannot say XMRV cannot be found in UK. Health policy is disolved in Scotland and is not part of the UK government or NICE. If no samples outwith England then cannot make claims for the whole of the UK.
 
G

George

Guest
Such a clever Kitty

Will have to wait and see when published but unless they tested people from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales they cannot say XMRV cannot be found in UK. Health policy is disolved in Scotland and is not part of the UK government or NICE. If no samples outwith England then cannot make claims for the whole of the UK.
Very nice point. Can't wait to see the actual paper. Be the first thing I do in the morning, go paper hunting. (grins)
 
G

George

Guest
ROFLMT(tail)O, snort

This is going to come down to a battle for credibility between these two female retroviral researchers. I notice that Myra Mclure is a bit secretive about herself compared to other academics at this institution:
http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/people/m.mcclure/

She is a retrovirologist, and Wessely has chosen his weapon well. She is the retroviral terminator being sent into the past in order to change the future and find Kyle Reece/XMRV/Mikovits and make sure it never happened.
Nice one Levi! The McClure/Mikovits smack down in 2010. . . Think we can send her back to studying Foamy cells??? Seriously she has some major creds.
 
G

George

Guest
Yeah My moneys on Dr. Mikovits

George,
This is why I went to UOP last fall to see Dr. Mikovits in person. Bartender Judy. McClure had better be careful to step in the ring. Mikovits can take her.
I just can't figure out why someone with her (McClure) creds would get involved in this. Let's say you get 6 of 12 studies that come back more in favor of XMRV that would put a real crimp in this ladies Vita.
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
45
I had expected Wessely to lay low at least until he saw which way the wind was blowing on the XMRV replication studies later this year. I did not expect him to try to personally re-direct the wind!

A bit of pure speculation on Wessely's motivations here..

I'm not sure I see the strategy behind this new maneuvering, as he can't prevent the ongoing XMRV studies from going through, and will look like an ass if they find XMRV...

However, an early "pre-emptive" study may be useful to him as it would give a basis to discourage further funding in the UK into XMRV research, which would at least allow him a degree of continuing influence within the UK. Even in this strategy, of course, he would be hoping that there is limited confirmation of the WPI findings or at least that it takes time.
 
A

anne

Guest
This is the perfect chance for the UK organizations to expose the unscience behind the science. They have ammo now. But do they have guns and do they know how to load them? (As opposed to the response of our advocacy group to XMRV and Reeves' comments in the Times, which was to lock the ammo in a box and hide it in the back of the closet lest someone get hurt....)
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
Likes
45
I just can't figure out why someone with her (McClure) creds would get involved in this. Let's say you get 6 of 12 studies that come back more in favor of XMRV that would put a real crimp in this ladies Vita.
I know... but what is more baffling is her brazenly unscientific declaration to the BBC. She stands a lot more to lose professionally from a screw-up in this field than Wessely (a psychiatrist, who can always blame her) does.
 

hvs

Senior Member
Messages
292
Likes
0
This is the perfect chance for the UK organizations to expose the unscience behind the science. They have ammo now. But do they have guns and do they know how to load them? (As opposed to the response of our advocacy group to XMRV and Reeves' comments in the Times, which was to lock the ammo in a box and hide it in the back of the closet lest someone get hurt....)
Hilarious.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,347
I don't understand the science of the PCR stuff. The way the patients were selected looks okay to me (if likely to be different to the WPI study). It sounds like they're implying the WPI result could have been thrown by possible contamination.

It seems to me that the tests for XMRV are not as solid as some seem to say. The variable prostate studies might indicate this too.

Wait and see imo.

This bit made me laugh, just because of how they phrased it:

"Patients in our CFS cohort had undergone medical screening to exclude detectable organic illness and met the CDC criteria for CFS."


Of thsoe patients screened to make sure they were not suffering from a viral infection, no viral infection was found.
 

hvs

Senior Member
Messages
292
Likes
0
Wow: Wessley seemed to provide/define the patients [see the very bottom of the page]:
Responsible for providing samples and associated data from a well characterised and valuable cohort of subjects: SW.
 
Messages
28
Likes
7
they didn't use Canadian definition

only Fukuda. So they're not replicating the WPI study-they're not using the same patient population.
 

hvs

Senior Member
Messages
292
Likes
0
"Patients in our CFS cohort had undergone medical screening to exclude detectable organic illness and met the CDC criteria for CFS."
By definition this undermines the study. Are they saying that no one had EBV?? What if XMRV needs a herpes virus to act??
 
G

George

Guest
big missing piece???

O.K. I'm going to read through this again but. . .

Normally wouldn't you:

  1. Test a set of samples that you knew were positive to make sure your PCR was set up correctly?
  2. Get a copy of the RNA (virus) that you were looking for to make sure you were getting the correct virus particles?
  3. Test both known CFS/ME and healthy controls?
Notice to that this study was submitted on December 1st?????

The positive control was amplified in each run by the XMRV and MLV primer sets.
Only one positive control??

Does anyone get the impression in the "Discussion" section that they are sneering at WPI/NCI/CC??