Trine Tsouderos "New study casts doubt"

[urbantravels]

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-retrovirus-study-20101025,0,3508107.story

New study casts doubt on retrovirus link to cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome

A new study casts further doubt on the role of a retrovirus, XMRV, in human disease, adding weight to the possibility that earlier studies finding a link between the virus and cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome may have been wrong.

In the study, researchers from the National Cancer Institute and Johns Hopkins Medicine report being unable to find any evidence of the retrovirus in nearly 800 prostate cancer samples.

"It is possible that XMRV is not actually circulating in the human population," the team wrote in its paper published by the journal Cancer Research last week.

Have we been discussing this paper from Cancer Research anywhere on the boards?

I do not follow the logic here. What this study appears to cast doubt on is the ability of this particular group using their particular methods to find XMRV in anybody - so another 0/0 study. And since it is a study of prostate cancer patients, I don't see how you can argue that it "casts doubt" on ANYTHING having to do with chronic fatigue syndrome.

For some reason I can't find this story on the Chicago Tribune site, but here it is prominently displayed in the LA Times, which makes me annoyed because the LAT has consistently been negative in their coverage of XMRV news, has no actual reporters of their own on the story, and this is the paper my local friends and former colleagues are reading. :Retro mad:

 

[urbantravels]

I also note that there is a way to give the story a "star rating" by clicking on the yellow stars just under the Facebook "like" buttons. It's averaging 1.71 stars but I'm sure if more knowledgeable people read it that average might go down. (There is no rating lower than "one star.")

 

[free at last]

I thought the NCI were already suggesting or at least confirming, that XMRV was circulating in the population, supporting the WPS s findings ? is that not so then ?
to be detecting it in 4 different methods, seems unlikely to be a contaminant, how can a anti body react to a contaminant, and grow it in culture ?
Why is it so hard to determine these tests are actually detecting a live virus, regardless of any negative, tests. ( should say studys ) if its really being found. and that can be proven ( why is it so hard to prove this ) then clearly something else is going wrong in the negative studys, and it has nothing to do with the contamination idea. but more to do with a handful of other problems, yet to be determined. whatever they are ?
I dont really know anything about this technical stuff. So am i wrong to be thinking like this. if anyone could help me understand a little more. what ever this result suggests, its completely at odds with other results in the united states finding XMRV in cancer ? ( lost already there ? ) and where the hell is the 4% that should be picked up, that is in the general population ? this all nuts, to coin a technical term

 

[omerbasket]

"free at last", the researchers in the current study are not the researchers from the NCI who are collaborating with the WPI. These are two different groups of researchers who are having opposite results.
The link for this study (where you can see the authors, and can't see, for example, the name of Dr. Francis Ruscetti from the NCI, who is collaborating with the WPI) is here:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/20/0008-5472.CAN-10-2837.abstract

 

[free at last]

Ahh ok thanks for that info. these differences are really suggesting a problem with testing of some kind then. because 800 samples is not exactly a few is it. seems very unlikely that not 1 sample contained XMRV, if both groups are working on samples from the usa, so either the 800 sample testing is running into problems. or the other group is not really detecting xmrv. So how sure are we that they are indeed detecting XNRV in there samples. because if we can answer that. that only really seens to leave one probable answer doesnt it. again apologies if my understanding is to limeted, which it likely is, i should probably wait for thiose who understand these things better to discuss this. and try and learn from what they say
Cheers Omerbasket

 

[*GG*]

I also note that there is a way to give the story a "star rating" by clicking on the yellow stars just under the Facebook "like" buttons. It's averaging 1.71 stars but I'm sure if more knowledgeable people read it that average might go down. (There is no rating lower than "one star.")

I voted and it was only at 1.55, so sad?

 

[eric_s]

It's just simply not true that no one has confirmed the XMRV/CFS connection. What about Hanson? And also Alter/Lo, i mean they say so themselves. And all the studies using VIP Dx. Then IrsiCaixa in Spain have also found XMRV.

 

[ukxmrv]

Did anyone else submit a comment to this that didn't appear?

 

[free at last]

Hi KFG i understand that, but what exactly do they think the wpi nih, and others are actually finding then, a model to explain how they think the other researchers are at fault would be helpful. I havent seen the full paper, so not sure if this is in there or not. was blood and tissue looked at ?
wonder if the wpi has made a statement ?

 

[ukxmrv]

KGF,

you probably know that many patients on this forum are XMRV+ like myself, are reading all the papers when they appear and are talking/thinking through all the issues.

The contamination one has been discussed extensively. I can't see the caution level being raised by Trine Tsouderos or some paper we haven't seen.

I'm optimistic and I've not seen anything to change this.

 

[eric_s]

One thing i will never understand. How can one group at the NCI find XMRV and another one can't? If i was working for an organisation and can find something and then i know of another group from the same organisation doing a study, i would talk to them and compare the methods. Then either they will be able to find it too, or i will know i was wrong, after finding out what the error was. It's like what happened at the RKI in Germay too, earlier this year.

 

[free at last]

Glad you guys are discussing this,
Agree with all the points but i do think this study is both confusing and damaging in the short term. the cancer studys seem to be paning out like the CFS ones, with positive then negative. It seems there is a problem here, but the million dollar question is what is it ?

Eric exactly spot on, its almost as if we have one group that wants to find it and one that does not. not speaking to one another comparing results working together to understand whats happening here, instead we have one group saying theres a link, and another thats saying it might not be infecting humans all from the same department, something isnt adding up, guys, that does indeed worry me. But not sure yet for what reason