Timeline--how many studies have attempted to replicate the Science article since 2009

[jenbooks]

Is there a timeline anywhere, a quick thumbnail looksee at the list of studies that have attempted to replicate the research since 2009? THANKS

 

[Wonko]

I think it depends on your defintion of "replicate", according to some the answer is zero, but as I'm not tech I couldnt say what the answer would generally (i.e. outside the ME "community") be accepted as.

 

[ukxmrv]

Jenbooks,

The WPI did a document that listed the failed studies and notes about why they probably failed. No study has attempted to replicate the original Science one sadly.

If I can find the document I'll post a link here. If you look on their website you may be able to find it.

 

[jenbooks]

Thank you very much

Jenbooks,

The WPI did a document that listed the failed studies and notes about why they probably failed. No study has attempted to replicate the original Science one sadly.

If I can find the document I'll post a link here. If you look on their website you may be able to find it.

 

[asleep]

Jenbooks,

The WPI did a document that listed the failed studies and notes about why they probably failed. No study has attempted to replicate the original Science one sadly.

If I can find the document I'll post a link here. If you look on their website you may be able to find it.

I believe this is what you're looking for:

http://files.me.com/jdj88/tnmi0f

 

[Bob]

I don't know if this is the sort of thing that you are looking for? ...

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/showthread.php?12518-List-of-XMRV-Research-Studies

You might have to check under various headings to get the full list that you require.

 

[jenbooks]

Thanks guys. I think there have been more than five studies...well anyway, thanks.

 

[ukxmrv]

There's a page here as well

http://www.mecfsforums.com/wiki/List_of_positive_and_negative_ME_&_CFS-related_studies

 

[Guido den Broeder]

Is there a timeline anywhere, a quick thumbnail looksee at the list of studies that have attempted to replicate the research since 2009? THANKS

Replicate? None.

A replication study needs to follow the protocol of the original study. Instead, all later researchers chose their own method to detect a retrovirus.

 

[omerbasket]

And who said that the study was fraudulent? ERV?
When you bring us the proof, you would be able to say that. Until then, please keep it to yourself.

 

[kurt]

Replicate? None.

A replication study needs to follow the protocol of the original study. Instead, all later researchers chose their own method to detect a retrovirus.

This is a validation vs replication issue. Using your own methods is proper science, validating a novel finding requires that multiple methods can show the presence of the organism. If only the original test design shows the organism that raises suspicion of false positive results. Many different test designs can find other retroviruses, such as HIV, for example.

Anyway, the second CDC study did replicate the test, using a WPI assay. I believe one or two of the other studies were replication attempts, but yes, most were validation efforts, using different methods to find the virus. A positive validation study would lend far more credibility to the original hypothesis than a simple replication, which had already been done with the Cleveland Clinic. Also, all of the outside studies were properly calibrated, using the same sequences WPI used to calibrate their tests. So this is really a non-issue. Even WPI has not been able to replicate their original results. What does that tell you?

Incidentally, the second CDC study went further than WPI, running by far the best antibody study. The CDC used real copies of XMRV/MLVs to stimulate any antibody response. Other labs also ran tests for the entire MLV family (using the pol gene, the portion conserved in any mutations), finding no evidence of any MLV infection in ME/CFS.

Also, FWIW, the regular comments by some ME/CFS patients about 'activation' of the DNA being required is strange as modern PCR tests, the types used by outside labs, do not require activation. The types of PCR tests run by the 0/0 studies can find a sequence regardless where it is located, embedded in the DNA, live, or pulled out by an activating agent.

 

[jenbooks]

I asked a straightforward question and you know exactly what I meant.

I'm not going to be drawn into the ridiculous stuff I see all over the internet and I don't appreciate this thread being used for that purpose. Don't you have enough other threads?

And who said that the study was fraudulent? ERV?
When you bring us the proof, you would be able to say that. Until then, please keep it to yourself.

 

[jenbooks]

Thanks, Kurt.

This is a validation vs replication issue. Using your own methods is proper science, validating a novel finding requires that multiple methods can show the presence of the organism. If only the original test design shows the organism that raises suspicion of false positive results. Many different test designs can find other retroviruses, such as HIV, for example.

Anyway, the second CDC study did replicate the test, using a WPI assay. I believe one or two of the other studies were replication attempts, but yes, most were validation efforts, using different methods to find the virus. A positive validation study would lend far more credibility to the original hypothesis than a simple replication, which had already been done with the Cleveland Clinic. Also, all of the outside studies were properly calibrated, using the same sequences WPI used to calibrate their tests. So this is really a non-issue. Even WPI has not been able to replicate their original results. What does that tell you?

Incidentally, the second CDC study went further than WPI, running by far the best antibody study. The CDC used real copies of XMRV/MLVs to stimulate any antibody response. Other labs also ran tests for the entire MLV family (using the pol gene, the portion conserved in any mutations), finding no evidence of any MLV infection in ME/CFS.

Also, FWIW, the regular comments by some ME/CFS patients about 'activation' of the DNA being required is strange as modern PCR tests, the types used by outside labs, do not require activation. The types of PCR tests run by the 0/0 studies can find a sequence regardless where it is located, embedded in the DNA, live, or pulled out by an activating agent.

 

[Bob]

Replicate? None.

A replication study needs to follow the protocol of the original study. Instead, all later researchers chose their own method to detect a retrovirus.

Crap on that.
You can't replicate fraudulent studies.

And who said that the study was fraudulent? ERV?
When you bring us the proof, you would be able to say that. Until then, please keep it to yourself.

I asked a straightforward question and you know exactly what I meant.

I'm not going to be drawn into the ridiculous stuff I see all over the internet and I don't appreciate this thread being used for that purpose. Don't you have enough other threads?

If people make accusations that the Science paper was "fraudulent", then they should expect other people to post comments to set the record straight, which Omer has every right to do.

It is a very controversial statement to make, and there is no solid evidence to back it up, and so it is sure to provoke a response.

 

[barbc56]

If scientist tried to replicate the study, step by step, since part of the methods were left out, the use of azacytidine, the other scientist would have to be mind readers.

Even if all the methods are known, if the original paper is not valid, then all you would get is another paper that is not valid.

 

[Bob]

If scientist tried to replicate the study, step by step, since part of the methods were left out, the use of azacytidine, the other scientist would have to be mind readers.

Even if all the methods are known, if the original paper is not valid, then all you would get is another paper that is not valid.

If you are interested in discussing or reading about this further barb, then please see this interesting post that deals with the point you have raised, on a thread specifically about 5AZA:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...es-5AZA-matter&p=210834&viewfull=1#post210834

 

[Firestormm]

You know this word 'replication' seems to have caused mucho problems for some people. I mean some call for complete replication of the complete methodology of Lombardi et al and some (within the scientific world) seem to believe that one makes any and all attempts to 'replicate' the results of that study.

Personally, Lombardi et al. has been 'replicated' to kingdom come and they ain't been able to do it even in studies (i.e. BWG) where the original team were contributors. Anyway, methinks the original question has been answered so I won't throw any linkies in the mix. I believe though that Research 1st might also carry a list of all the studies - but am pretty foggy at the minute.

Nice post Kurt btw.

 

[ukxmrv]

Firestormm,

How would you judge the negative studies now that we know about the VP 62 clone. If you are so eager to believe in replications how would you explain away that huge problem?

There is a lot of sense in the argument that Lombardi et al has never been replicated.

 

[ukxmrv]

Jenbooks,

I bothered to answer your question and took time. The word replication and having the study actually replicated does mean something to me.

If you feel that way please make it clear in your original questions so I won't bother to try and be helpful and answer them.

 

[Firestormm]

Firestormm,

How would you judge the negative studies now that we know about the VP 62 clone. If you are so eager to believe in replications how would you explain away that huge problem?

There is a lot of sense in the argument that Lombardi et al has never been replicated.

Evening,

Sorry I don't understand your question. Are you saying that the negative studies were only (as in how could they otherwise) able to look for VP62 and that this is somehow different to what was 'found' in the Lombardi paper and in their patient samples?

If so then I would say that there is nothing I have read to date that suggests Lombardi et al 'found' anything different than VP62. I guess though we should wait for the Science review/investigation to be completed and hear if the paper will now be retracted in full.

Of course if another paper is published that provides better evidence for this 'association' then it all begins again. I mean let's face it there have been enough promises made that more 'positive' studies were in the works or more conclusive evidence. It would be nice to see them published - you must surely be fed up hearing the promises and not seeing any results. No?