The real story about XMRV coming out today?

[Ecoclimber]

I agree with you on the first part but disagree with you on the other. I know as a fact that within retrovirology community, many retovirologists give Erv credence on her analysis of xmrv. One retrovirologist even stated that one of her blogs on xmrv should be in Science. The facts are there for everyone to see. If you disagree then you can always go on her blog to comment otherwise. It's best to be a skeptic and analyze both sides of the argument.

For me, I don't know. I believe that xmrv is a deadend but I also believe that other retroviruses could still play a part in this illness but that is just my opinion for now as I have not seen any data one way or the other to suggest a different viewpoint.

Eco

 

[Undisclosed]

ERV is simply a student with a filthy mouth, not any kind of scientific authority.

I suggest members do not add to her hit count.

SOC. ERV may well have a filthy mouth. I just read her blog and if you ignore her personal comments and look at her evidence, it is very troubling. The first slide comes from the Science paper. The second slide came from the conference in Ottawa. The slides are identical down to extraneous garbage. What has happened here. Mikovits has taken the same experimental result and labelled it in two different ways. The first slide compares patients versus controls. In the second slide, the controls from the first slide have become the patients. I find this troubling and it doesn't matter if ERV has potty mouth. I really would like Judy Mikovits to address this because her answer really matters.

 

[RustyJ]

I agree with you on the first part but disagree with you on the other. I know as a fact that within retrovirology community, many retovirologists give Erv credence on her analysis of xmrv. One retrovirologist even stated that one of her blogs on xmrv should be in Science. The facts are there for everyone to see. If you disagree then you can always go on her blog to comment otherwise. It's best to be a skeptic and analyze both sides of the argument.

For me, I don't know. I believe that xmrv is a deadend but I also believe that other retroviruses could still play a part in this illness but that is just my opinion for now as I have not seen any data one way or the other to suggest a different viewpoint.

Eco

Well all that does is undermine the credibility of those in the retrovirologist community that you mingle with. Not sure who it is supposed to impress.

A commenter under assumed name stated ERVs blogs on xmrv should be in Science. Are you saying this poster was a retrovirologist? How do you know this? I presume this poster is someone you know, a collegue perhaps? And now you refer to this comment as though it was authoritative and independent, something that we should sit up and respectfully acknowledge.

Who is promoting the scientist and not the science now?

I also notice you continue to use the term XMRV. I don't think you will get an argument from anyone, even WPI, when you say XMRV is dead. XMRV was VP62 and so named by Silverman.

Do you also believe HGRVs are deadend? When you say you believe that other retroviruses could still play a part in this illness, do you include HGRVs?

What makes you believe that other retroviruses could still play a part in this illness? Is this a gut feeling? You have very little contact with patients, only a passing interest in ME/CFS. You do not have the disease, yet you believe it could be caused by a retrovirus? Forgive me, but this sounds a little hollow, particularly coming from a person who appears to place high regard in facts.

 

[Daffodil]

so will we have to wait until the end of the year for the lipkin results?

 

[RustyJ]

One retrovirologist even stated that one of her blogs on xmrv should be in Science.

Eco

Were you referring to this delightful comment?

Abbie, you really need to get this submitted to Science before the close of business today, so Science can get it peer reviewed and responded to over the weekend. You might send them an email directing them to your blog now, so they know it is coming and will check their email over the weekend.

You would have to be the corresponding author because your collaborators need to stay anonymous.

Make it clear that you are not doing this as representing your university and are not using any funding to do it, so the names of your collaborators can't be gotten through a FOI.

This is something that shows the power and benefits of blogging, and even anonymous blogging (which MSM and now even ScienceBlogs considers to be anathema). Your collaborators couldn't have blown the whistle without retaliation, so they turned to you. Not because you are a super-duper scientist (which I think you are

It is the fear of those with privilege that is making your collaborators stay anonymous.

Posted by: daedalus2u | September 30, 2011 3:24 PM

I hope for the sake of your credibility you are not referring to this comment from daedalus2u who states that ERV is a 'super-duper scientist (which I think you are'. Icky! Take it outside!

The descriptive "super-duper" undermines what little weight the comment carried, at least for me. I'll stop laughing now. Is d2u also a super-duper scientist would you say? It goes without saying that you have probably compromised any anonymity that d2u might have had. The pool of super-duper scientists can't be that large, by definition. Possibly only an elite few. I'm sure someone will be able to work it out.

 

[heapsreal]

im just sick of all the crap and politics and ego's surrounding the whole retroviral stuff. We still dont have any answers.

I would just like to know what else happened at the conference besides everyone trying to beef up their ego's over who is right and who is wrong.

I really dont give a rats about all the bulls---, just wish they would find out how to diagnose and treat us properly, instead of holding back on info etc to whoever is the highest bidder

 

[Ecoclimber]

I agree one hundred percent with your comments heapsreal. You stated it so succinctly and effectively. I can empathize with your frustration as your comments represent the feelings of many within the patient community.

For the others, Erv is Abbie Smith. The retovirlogists that I am referring too are preeminent in their field and this is within the established scientific community. No Rustj, the comment about Erv is from a well respected retrovirologist. I don't know who Erv source is.

However, I do know that many retrovirologists are upset by the lack of corroboration and forthrightness by the WPI. If you think Erv has a filthy mouth, I know of another well known retrovirlogist that can be easily cast in that light. It's not about ad hominem attacks on other people, it's about truth of the evidence. Some people can't handle that. I don't believe anyone should be upset about Erv blog. People should welcome opposing viewpoints and not feel threatened by them. What we want is to find a cause and a cure for this illness and not waste precious resources going down a dead end street. It could be another retrovirus. It could be HGRV but let the data and the evidence support the findings and not the other way around. Let no one give false hope to a patient community without substantial data.

I mean the controversy over XMRV and the contamination issue has suddenly been dropped by some who now say it is HGRV and Silverman did us a favor by ruling out XMRV and acknowledging XMRV and VP-62 as a contaminate. WPI, Alter/Lo discovered HGRV and are running with this now. Could be but the patient community deserves substantial scientific evidence and proof before you can make such claims.

I despair how opposing interests on both sides assassinate the characters of established retroviorlogist. It is uncalled for the recent attacks on Racaniello, Peterson, Mikovits, Coffin, Bateman, Singh, Klimas to name a few. I fear for this patient community as most scientists will pause before engaging into any scientific research regarding this illness.

That is all I have to say about this and retroviruses as my investigation has taken me to another area of ME/CFS research.

Peace

Eco
Never lose hope.

 

[Daffodil]

dr. mikovits is up against so much opposition now, i wish we could all send her a gesture of support to show her we still believe in her. whatever happens, she has been instrumental in saving our lives, if they end up being saved.

 

[Bob]

I also notice you continue to use the term XMRV. I don't think you will get an argument from anyone, even WPI, when you say XMRV is dead. XMRV was VP62 and so named by Silverman.

This is something that has been confusing me. Are they now saying that XMRV is only VP62? i.e. that XMRV is one distinct sequence, without variation?

So any HGRV that doesn't fit VP62 exactly will not be called XMRV?

 

[RustyJ]

This is something that has been confusing me. Are they now saying that XMRV is only VP62? i.e. that XMRV is one distinct sequence, without variation?

So any HGRV that doesn't fit VP62 exactly will not be called XMRV?

Yep. That is my understanding of it. Of course my understanding of it could be wrong, it has certainly been shown to be wrong before . Or it could be too much of a simpliication of what is happening. But it explains an awful lot of what has been going on up to this point. It also explains a lot of what went wrong with BWG (not all of it).

It's quite funny (or would be if patients weren't dying), because after Lo, WPI came out and said no we are finding all sorts of variations, we want to call all of them XMRV. But the anti crowd tried to pin WPI to the floor with VP62. I suspect the cat was out of the bag about Silverman's issues a long time ago. I also think the WPI were the last to know about it, even if they suspected it. It does appear that Silveman has gone over to the dark side.

What will really be interesting is how much variation the new WPI sequences show from VP62. Will some argue that it is really VP62? Apparently HGRVs replicate through cell mitosis, not just by RT, so mutation is lower. A strain showing a only a slight variance really is another variation not just a mutated VP62. Don't forget there are already registered a number of partial and full sequences of other variations which are not shown to be lab artifacts.

PS. Bob, not much of this is my own work. I am trying desperately to keep up with the discussions on this at mecfsforums. And by the time I read a thread and move onto the next I have already forgotten the point of the first.

 

[RustyJ]

Well this is going to be embarrassing... ERV's 'super-duper'' scientific skills have been lauded in this thread. Well ERV has just been accused of fraud by some heavyweights (and I am not talking about the posters on the referred forum).

Read on, but ye venture into these treacherous waters at yer own risk: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,9733.0.html

 

[Undisclosed]

Well this is going to be embarrassing... ERV's 'super-duper'' scientific skills have been lauded in this thread. Well ERV has just been accused of fraud by some heavyweights (and I am not talking about the posters on the referred forum).

Read on, but ye venture into these treacherous waters at yer own risk: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,9733.0.html

Where is the fraud? One slide came directly from the Science paper, the other slide came from the Ottawa conference. They are identical. There is no way to get around this. I am hoping Judy Mikovits can provide an explanation for this because it really can't be ignored.

 

[Esther12]

I don't think V99 is right about this.

 

[heapsreal]

Interesting, cough cough, cant stop coffin.

 

[RustyJ]

I don't think V99 is right about this.

I admit some of V's comments are a little 'eccentric'. I have had a devil of a time trying to follow a lot of what she says (mainly my poor understanding). However I am intrigued, Esther, why don't you think V is right in this case? Keeping in mind that Shepherd (according to V) and V herself have some knowledge in this area.

By the way kjm, the images do not appear to be the same, not that I really understand what is going on.

 

[heapsreal]

arent they suppose to be from rats but one is from a goat, so thats going to bugger up a few tests??????

 

[Esther12]

the images do not appear to be the same

This is the key part. If they're different images from different tests, then there's no problem. But they are the same. ERV's post made that clear. I don't understand how anyone can look at these images, and claim that they're of different test results.

Maybe, if you took millions of tests, you'd eventually get ones that looked so similar, but for two images to be picked out by the same institution to be coincidentally identical to one another? That's unbelievable.

 

[FancyMyBlood]

This is the key part. If they're different images from different tests, then there's no problem. But they are the same. ERV's post made that clear. I don't understand how anyone can look at these images, and claim that they're of different test results.

Maybe, if you took millions of tests, you'd eventually get ones that looked so similar, but for two images to be picked out by the same institution to be so identical to one another? That's unbelievable.

I believe it's pretty clear the images are the same.

The real question should be wether this is just sloppiness or fraud. I tend to go with the first option, and while I'm not a (retro)virologist I read in the comments of ERV's blog it's pretty easy to come up with a fraudulent image if Mikovits really wanted too. Still, a response of the WPI is highly warranted.

That being said, I'm really getting ashamed and frustrated how some individuals damage the ME/CFS population as a whole. They should stop cherry-picking data and stop attacking scientists and other people disagreeing with them. I really hope scienstists understand that they're only a minor part of the ME/CFS population and start/keep looking for biomarkers and a cure. Wether we like it or not, we need them to get rid of this awful disease!

 

[RustyJ]

V suggests Charles Shepherd has accused ERV of fruad but I cannot find any first hand account of this. Does anyone have this? And I cant post on mecfsforums. Could someone please help, maybe ask V for clarification. According to what i can find on Shepherd's FB page he supports ERV.

Yes people have told the WPI and what Dr Shepherd has said too.

Actually on rereading, I don't think she is saying Dr Shepherd is accusing ERV of fraud. Which means of course that Shepherd has jumped onto the ERV bandwagon.

I await WPI's response with great interest.

 

[Bob]

What will really be interesting is how much variation the new WPI sequences show from VP62. Will some argue that it is really VP62? Apparently HGRVs replicate through cell mitosis, not just by RT, so mutation is lower. A strain showing a only a slight variance really is another variation not just a mutated VP62. Don't forget there are already registered a number of partial and full sequences of other variations which are not shown to be lab artifacts.

My understanding is that Judy has detected a wide range of HGRV's, including XMRVs, PMRVs, and others. So I hope she manages to get a non-XMRV strain sequenced.

PS. Bob, not much of this is my own work. I am trying desperately to keep up with the discussions on this at mecfsforums. And by the time I read a thread and move onto the next I have already forgotten the point of the first.

Thanks Rusty, it's much appreciated.