VIP Dx XMRV Test discontinued

[Ana]

The reason VIP Dx/UNEVX can't continue to use the same test for XMRV/HGRV, no matter what they call it, is because WPI was unable to validate the VIP Dx test.

One point I want to emphasize is that it is VIP Dx's test results that are in question here, not the research results upon which WPI relied in its research publications. The problem with the VIP tests would not affect the results of tests used in research at WPI because WPI researchers used several tests on each sample, and VIPDx used totally different tests and sample matrices that were never validated against WPI methods or done with the appropriate controls.

Dr. Judy Mikovits was not part of VIP Dx, and she is not part of UNEVX either, as far as I know. Whatever problems VIP Dx has, they are theirs and not WPI'S.

 

[ukxmrv]

The VIP dx test now offered by Unevx is not "discontinued".

I spoke with them myself and they say that they are just having a break from receiving any new samples. They have still got a huge backlog from the move from the VIP dx old premises.

I can't understand why you would think VIP dx's test is in question.

 

[Daffodil]

i spoke to them today too and they told me that they will no longer be doing the XMRV test and that it would be approx 2 years before they have a test for HGRV!

 

[ukxmrv]

So many conflicting things from them.

 

[JT1024]

XMRV is no longer the appropriate test to be testing for. Given what is now known regarding Dr. Silverman's findings, removing the term "XMRV" is just the next step.

However..... HGRV (Human Gamma Retroviruses) may be the correct wording for now. As Dr. Ruscetti mentioned last year, if this was HIV, it was 1983.

Science is not easy and the way is not always clear.

Regardless of recent media attempts to discredit the WPI, I continue to FULLY support the WPI.

Other organizations that "appear" to represent patients cannot come close to what the WPI has done. Do your own homework and learn for yourselves.

Hopefully some will see my post. Hopefully, it will not be deleted or edited.

 

[Bob]

XMRV is no longer the appropriate test to be testing for. Given what is now known regarding Dr. Silverman's findings, removing the term "XMRV" is just the next step.

However..... HGRV (Human Gamma Retroviruses) may be the correct wording for now. As Dr. Ruscetti mentioned last year, if this was HIV, it was 1983.

I don't understand why it's not appropriate to test for XMRV, because it's only VP62 XMRV that is an artificial contruct, so presumably there can be other variants of XMRV.

 

[RustyJ]

It's a good question Bob. I think that WPI had to withdraw their test to be seen to be doing the right thing, while things are in a state of flux.

I believed, from forum discussions months ago, that WPI was picking up many HGRVs with their proprietory assay. So I don't understand why they withdrew it. One explanation is that the assay wasn't picking up the whole family, in particular the newly sequenced variaions. I can imagine how that wouldn't go down well. At the time I did question whether WPI was picking up everything on another forum, but got shouted down. I ran away then.

Hopefully WPI will answer it themselves in the fullness of time. Perhaps they are waiting for new developments? Most of the discussion around the forums on this issue has been contradictory, perhaps because the responses have come from those lower down on the pecking order at WPI.

It does seem a pity if it pans out that WPI is picking up most of the strains, but missing a few critical ones, and we have to wait for two years for a new assay (which is what is being said elsewhere).

 

[Daffodil]

they said they are removing it cuz of "lack of interest"

 

[RustyJ]

they said they are removing it cuz of "lack of interest"

i spoke to them today too and they told me that they will no longer be doing the XMRV test and that it would be approx 2 years before they have a test for HGRV!

Hi Daffodil, thanks for passing this on. However I am a iittle confused - both of your comments appear to be contradictory, at least to me. Could you explain a little further?

 

[Daffodil]

how are they contradictory? sorry...very foggy

 

[RustyJ]

how are they contradictory? sorry...very foggy

I am not much better. I am going to be sorry for all this posting, tomorrow.

In isolation, the statement that it would be 2 years before they had a test for HGRV sort of implied (for me) they didn't have one now. But I guess you coud read that in 2 years time they think there will be enough interest to bring it back. is this how you see it? Sorry if that appeared obvious to you.

It just seems odd that they would withdraw it for lack of interest.

 

[Bob]

how are they contradictory? sorry...very foggy

Why would they reintroduce a test if there's no interest for it now?

 

[Bob]

It's a good question Bob. I think that WPI had to withdraw their test to be seen to be doing the right thing, while things are in a state of flux.

I believed, from forum discussions months ago, that WPI was picking up many HGRVs with their proprietory assay. So I don't understand why they withdrew it. One explanation is that the assay wasn't picking up the whole family, in particular the newly sequenced variaions. I can imagine how that wouldn't go down well. At the time I did question whether WPI was picking up everything on another forum, but got shouted down. I ran away then.

Hopefully WPI will answer it themselves in the fullness of time. Perhaps they are waiting for new developments? Most of the discussion around the forums on this issue has been contradictory, perhaps because the responses have come from those lower down on the pecking order at WPI.

It does seem a pity if it pans out that WPI is picking up most of the strains, but missing a few critical ones, and we have to wait for two years for a new assay (which is what is being said elsewhere).

Thanks Rusty.

Most of the discussion around the forums on this issue has been contradictory...

Yes, no one has been able to explain or clarify much, if anything, in the way of exact details, to me so far. I don't think anyone understands what's going on. The more I find out, the more confused I get.

 

[Esther12]

It seems very odd for them to say that they are withdrawing the test now, just because of a lack of interest.

 

[Daffodil]

i am sure its not cuz of lack of interest.....they probably just dont want to do any more testing until they are sure XMRV /MLV even exists. im sure a lot of people are asking for their money back etc. ...but saying there is lack of interest sounds better.

i dont know why its going to be 2 years for the other test

since they focused on XMRV, who will own the patent for the new test? lo/alter?

 

[Esther12]

i am sure its not cuz of lack of interest.....they probably just dont want to do any more testing until they are sure XMRV /MLV even exists. im sure a lot of people are asking for their money back etc. ...but saying there is lack of interest sounds better.

I think you're probably right.

 

[leaves]

Yes, the "lack of interest" is just spinn

 

[Firestormm]

Does anyone know what the 'tests' actually comprised? What were the assays they used and were they the same (presumably they were) as those used by WPI in the BWG paper?

I mean listening to TwiV 'Contaminated' they were saying that those labs in the BWG were able to use any assays they liked - so it would be odd if the WPI did not use the same ones as they used with VIPdx (now Unevx) and Lombardi.

Those who were 'tested positive' were told they were 'positive for XMRV' and yet now I am hearing that those same tests 'actually' meant they were positive for HGRVs? I get that XMRV is an MLV and there are several 'strains' of XMRV/MLVs BUT the BWG looked for XMRV/MLVs and couldn't find any.

So. Where does that leave those patients who 'tested positive for XMRV'? And where does it leave those 'tests'? Presumably following the BWG and the partial retraction by Silverman (perhaps), these 'tests' are being reconsidered.

I also noticed that Unevx were recently offering HGRV tests not XMRV ones and yet even they now have been taken off the order form: http://unevx.com/wp-content/themes/unevx/pdf/TEST_RQN_Sept_2011.pdf

May I ask someone who was told they were positive: were you told you were infected with 'XMRV' or an 'HGRV'?

Thanks (very confusing all of this isn't it?) :Retro smile:

 

[Daffodil]

the test results i think said XMRV serology but it was understood that it could be other related strains too....?

 

[Daffodil]

what do you guys think of the virus infecting neurons? that recent study showed XMRV could infect neurons...so that probably means the other strains could as well....but if our neurons were infected, wouldnt we all be demented or dead?