Video clip of Q&A at Peterson/de Meirleir presentation 26 May

[fred]

This includes a question about Huber's 'failure to detect' study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5kghQL3x0

Short but more to follow, apparently.

 

[jspotila]

It sounds like Dr. Peterson said that Dr. Huber had a positive control and was able to detect XMRV in that samples but not the others. But also that there needs to be more information on the cohorts she looked at.

I don't speak Spanish, so there were parts of the video I did not understand. At the end, there was a question about endemic vs. epidemic CFS and risk to parents/children. Did you catch what he said about that?

 

[parvofighter]

Transcribed excerpt of Dr Peterson's Q & A

Thanks Fred for a great find. The game is afoot, indeed. Here are my two fav quotes from the above short segment.

@ 1:04

Question: Regarding the German Study that they detected XMRV in the resp tract. Could that lead to another way to diagnose or detect XMRV that is simpler than the way they (WPI) detect it now?

Peterson's reply: I think thats a very good possibility and thats clearly being explored.
​

@ 1: 32

Question: Could you say something about Dr Brigitte Hubers lecture on Monday (In London)

Peterson's reply: ... In which she reported that she used a probe for integrase - specific for XMRV integrase She is a retrovirologist that used a probe for integrase that is highly specific for the integrase of XMRV and reported from three different cohorts that she found no positives. But again, the question becomes, How accurate is her probe for integrase? And what populations did she look at? Thats why we want this idea of sharing specimens because she could (Peterson' emphasis) find XMRV from the positive patient that I showed you. Thats her example from that particular patient she was positive. But in none of the other patients that she tested.
​

If she was able to detect a positive control, two questions come to mind. Was her probe sufficiently sensitive/specific to detect lower titres; and were her sample preparation techniques the same as WPI's? I remember Huber stated her sensitivity. But was that enough? Other thoughts?

 

[paddygirl]

Does anyone know if this was secretly filmed?

This includes a question about Huber's 'failure to detect' study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5kghQL3x0

Short but more to follow, apparently.

 

[_Kim_]

Parvo, thanks for the mini transcription. YouTube won't work for me today. Weird.

 

[leelaplay]

Kim, I got stuck once at 1:52, but refreshed and the whole thing played through. Hope it works soon.

good question paddygirl. It has a bit of that look. Does anyone know if this has "official" sanction?

 

[Cort]

Thanks Fred for a great find. The game is afoot, indeed. Here are my two fav quotes from the above short segment.

@ 1:04

Question: Regarding the German Study that they detected XMRV in the resp tract. Could that lead to another way to diagnose or detect XMRV that is simpler than the way they (WPI) detect it now?

Peterson's reply: I think that’s a very good possibility and that’s clearly being explored.
​

@ 1: 32

Question: Could you say something about Dr Brigitte Huber’s lecture on Monday (In London)

Peterson's reply: ... In which she reported that she used a probe for integrase - specific for XMRV integrase… She is a retrovirologist that used a probe for integrase that is highly specific for the integrase of XMRV and reported from three different cohorts that she found no positives. But again, the question becomes, “How accurate is her probe for integrase? And what populations did she look at?” That’s why we want this idea of sharing specimens because she could (Peterson' emphasis) find XMRV from the positive patient that I showed you. That’s her example from that particular patient – she was positive. But in none of the other patients that she tested.
​

If she was able to detect a positive control, two questions come to mind. Was her probe sufficiently sensitive/specific to detect lower titres; and were her sample preparation techniques the same as WPI's? I remember Huber stated her sensitivity. But was that enough? Other thoughts?

Good point Parvo, I was ready to assume that - if XMRV is only present in WPI samples then it is a problem with contamination - but there are more options. I would discard the first one - I would think that some of those patients would have had enough XMRV to show up using her probe - she had 200 or so from CFS physicians or the HHV6 Foundation - it can't be the cohort! but maybe there is something in the sample preparation - we did hear someone from the DHHS say there was some question about that - so maybe thats what happened. The contamination question is cropping up a bit though.

Its interesting that this is yet another different look at XMRV - looking for an enzyme specific to XMRV.

 

[paddygirl]

Kim, I got stuck once at 1:52, but refreshed and the whole thing played through. Hope it works soon.

good question paddygirl. It has a bit of that look. Does anyone know if this has "official" sanction?

I had a chat at the conference in London with Dr Peterson, myself and an English lady ( mother of an 18 yr old with M.E.) decided to be proactive and ask a few questions. A TV crew were trying to film him and he politely said 'I don't do that'.
He then mentioned that a patient had written verbatim about his consultation on the internet. He didn't say that he was offended but that was the impression I got. I guess if a patient expects doctor/patient confidentiality then perhaps a doctor won't be too happy about a blow by blow account on the web. I can see his point. I did say that we are all desperate for information and that is why we hang on every word. He seemed like a very decent man who is finding the circus a bit tiring.

If this film is secret, which I assume it is as no recording devices were allowed in London, then I think it's a step too far.
On another thread tonight, I think it's the Cold Spring Harbour one, a poster said it well. Very tired as late here but think it was something about respecting the people that work so hard for us. I couldn't agree more, I was wiped after my days in London, I can't imagine how all those people do the traveling and time changes, and all for us.

 

[julius]

I was ready to assume that - if XMRV is only present in WPI samples then it is a problem with contamination -

Cort,

The contamination issue has been thoroughly put to bed. Just by sequencing the whole genome (2.5 times) they proved their point. Then they found antibodies, etc. etc.

 

[Dr. Yes]

Good point Parvo, I was ready to assume that - if XMRV is only present in WPI samples then it is a problem with contamination - but there are more options...The contamination question is cropping up a bit though.

How could it be a problem with contamination? I have never understood that argument. Even if the WPI was the only group that could find it out of the next twenty, contamination still would be too improbable...

They found different strains of XMRV (i.e. that differ by a few nucleotides from one another). A single contaminant would not come in strains! And, when they isolated and sequenced entire genomes of whatever-it-is-they-found (if we assume for the moment it was not XMRV) they did a phylogenetic analysis comparing it to known XMRV strains (prostate) and MLV. The result was a clustering on the XMRV branch of the phylogenetic tree, not on MLV's. AND, the Cleveland Clinic isolated and sequenced XMRV env and gag sequences from WPI patient samples.

Then there is the issue of the controls testing largely negative (except for about 4%) overall, and then there was the separate experiment where they did antibody tests for viral protein expression and again the controls tested negative. Then there was the experiment where they managed to infect prostate cells by mixing them with CFS patient plasma, finding XMRV gag and env sequences afterwards in those prostate cells, but again NOT in the controls in that experiment.

So the alleged contamination somehow always avoided the control group and always looked exactly like XMRV, and even came in a few different genotypes. Inferring contamination in this case comes close to invoking the supernatural, as I see it!

 

[awol]

It is quite probable that sample collection methods and storage will prove to have played a role in Huber's negative results, along with insufficient methodology.

The positive control from the WPI wold probably have been collected and stored a different way.

 

[consuegra]

De Meirleir was going to give a preliminary report on a compound of sorts. What did he say?

Chris

 

[fred]

There is no full transcript yet but, apparently, De Meirleir said that they have an XMRV test that works and that it should be available in 3-4 weeks.

 

[Rivotril]

There is no full transcript yet but, apparently, De Meirleir said that they have an XMRV test that works and that it should be available in 3-4 weeks.

Thanks Fred for this news!
Do you know that he meant the antibody test? So that the Vipdx antibody test will be ready in a month or so?

 

[fred]

Thanks Fred for this news!
Do you know that he meant the antibody test? So that the Vipdx antibody test will be ready in a month or so?

No, it's not clear if it's culture or serum anti-body or both. We might know more next week.

In the meantime, here is a further clip, this time with De Meirleir speaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5buH30LcTds

 

[leelaplay]

Ah - I love a man with the inside track. :Retro wink:

Fred, do you know if these videos are bootleg or sanctioned?

 

[fred]

To be honest, I don't really know.

 

[maryb]

I've just put a new Norton security program on so with the video can now only get 3 words before it starts buffering grrrrrrrr, I've given up.

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

Anyone ask Peterson why he left WPI?

Tina

 

[fred]

He said it was a personal decision to have more time to himself and to go sailing again. I think the guy is just tired after 25 years. He certainly looked drained on Monday.