William Switzer - CDC looking for XMRV and MLV in lab workers!
- Thread starter CBS
- Start date
HERE's MY NOTE TO BERGMAN:
I have been ill with CFS for 33 years. I have lost 3 decades of my life to this hideous, and FYI very debilitating neuro immune disease. And I am not alone. CFS affects btwn 1-4 million Americans, and approx 17 million people worldwide. According to Dr Nancy Klimas, who splits her practice between HIV and CFS, her HIV patients are "hale and hearty" compared to her CFS patients, who are often desperately ill and completely unable to participate in life.
Your comment at the recent conference on XMRV, which reduced the CFS patient community to a bunch of anti HIV believers and conspiratorial nut jobs, was really quite reprehensible. The suffering of very sick people is not a joke. Shame on you for making it into one.
I have been ill with CFS for 33 years. I have lost 3 decades of my life to this hideous, and FYI very debilitating neuro immune disease. And I am not alone. CFS affects btwn 1-4 million Americans, and approx 17 million people worldwide. According to Dr Nancy Klimas, who splits her practice between HIV and CFS, her HIV patients are "hale and hearty" compared to her CFS patients, who are often desperately ill and completely unable to participate in life.
Your comment at the recent conference on XMRV, which reduced the CFS patient community to a bunch of anti HIV believers and conspiratorial nut jobs, was really quite reprehensible. The suffering of very sick people is not a joke. Shame on you for making it into one.
Hi alphahusky, I think I should start calling my denier hat the devils advocate hat, or DA hat. I used to love wearing it. So, hat on.
This is the precautionary principle. Sure, it probably not infecting workers, and probably does not cause disease, but they have to be careful in protecting workers health. There are legal principles involved.
DA hat off. Yes, but why don't they make sure the blood supply is safe? Similar principle? Of course, they will just argue that is what the BWG is for, and that is a valid point. I just think ban first, investigate, then decide is a lot safer.
Bye
Alex
"There is a claim that...".
For some peculiar reason I have an itch this might be one of those - nudge nudge wink wink types you just explained yourself, as i'm reading beyond what is stated here
For some peculiar reason I have an itch this might be one of those - nudge nudge wink wink types you just explained yourself, as i'm reading beyond what is stated here
I've written to Donnica Moore, Judy Mikovits and Nancy Klimas about Bergman's comment, and asked them to respond to her.
Human suffering is not a joke. She needs to hear from us.
Human suffering is not a joke. She needs to hear from us.
Hi Grape, hence I call it a claim. The claim needs to be published and scrutinized, hence I am calling for them to publish. When we have so little data, it is hard to figure out what is happening. Bye, Alex
I know what you're saying but I don't know. They actually looked at alot of strains of XMRV from 22RV1 and prostate cancer but they only looked at two strains from CFS patients those were the WPI strains. Those two strains, though, were almost exactly the same as the 22RV1 strains. Plus the Science stated that all the gag and env sequences from all the patients were 99% similar to the VP62 strain (which basically the same as 22RV1). So there's some indirect evidence that the other strains at the WPI are probably not very different.
I don't know how much it costs to sequence an entire virus, but darn it, this has been an issue for 9 months now. Can't the WPI find the funds the sequence just 5 or 10 more strains? They had the funds to find an immune signature and that finding is meaningless unless they can convince the research world that XMRV is viable and I think they need to demonstrate more variability to do that.
Maybe it, like DNA integration, is more difficult than I think - I dont know.
I don't know how much it costs to sequence an entire virus, but darn it, this has been an issue for 9 months now. Can't the WPI find the funds the sequence just 5 or 10 more strains? They had the funds to find an immune signature and that finding is meaningless unless they can convince the research world that XMRV is viable and I think they need to demonstrate more variability to do that.
Maybe it, like DNA integration, is more difficult than I think - I dont know.
I agree, this comment comes across poorly to sick people trying to get better. However, I think Bergman was just trying to make an ironic comment. I did not get the impression from any of the presenters that they were insinuating we were not sick, they are just saying XMRV is not the cause of our illness and treating with ART is premature. But it was a pretty flippant remark, I'm sure she regrets saying that...
Now for some more Devils Advocate hat stuff.
I put forward an alternative XMRV contamination hypothesis on another thread recently. Basically that XMRV was real, but in lab workers and they were contaminating the samples. Since patient samples are handled more, this might mean that patients samples have a risk of real contamination, from a real virus.
This hypothesis has major problems, but fits with the cell line origin theory of XMRV. It also explains why some labs are finding it and not others - those labs have infected lab techs. Labs that don't have infected lab techs can't find the virus.
Bye
Alex
I put forward an alternative XMRV contamination hypothesis on another thread recently. Basically that XMRV was real, but in lab workers and they were contaminating the samples. Since patient samples are handled more, this might mean that patients samples have a risk of real contamination, from a real virus.
This hypothesis has major problems, but fits with the cell line origin theory of XMRV. It also explains why some labs are finding it and not others - those labs have infected lab techs. Labs that don't have infected lab techs can't find the virus.
Bye
Alex
I would like to MAKE SURE she regrets it. It was inappropriate and very uncompassionate.
How do you explain such difference in percentage of control vs experimental
Hi grape funk, this question keeps being asked and its a good question.
This is one of the things I have against the hypothesis - controls and patients should be more or less the same, and they are not. I think the hypothesis is probably wrong, but I would like proof. "I think" is not a valid scientific finding.
However, as has been said many times, controls get tested a few times, patient samples get tested many many times, there is more risk of contamination from infected lab staff the more it is handled. This is a nudge nudge wink wink argument though - it has to be proved, and nobody has done that.
bye
Alex
This is one of the things I have against the hypothesis - controls and patients should be more or less the same, and they are not. I think the hypothesis is probably wrong, but I would like proof. "I think" is not a valid scientific finding.
However, as has been said many times, controls get tested a few times, patient samples get tested many many times, there is more risk of contamination from infected lab staff the more it is handled. This is a nudge nudge wink wink argument though - it has to be proved, and nobody has done that.
bye
Alex
"Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus (XMRV) Probably Originated Through Recombination Between Two Endogenous Murine Retroviruses During in vivo Passage of a Human Prostate Cancer Xenograft"
I wouldn't get too hung up on when this is alleged to have taken place.
If recombination happened in this case, why not in other mouse human xenografts?
Does anyone know when mouse human xenografts were first attempted? From a quick google the earliest reference I could find was 1983 (Neuroblastoma) but must have predated this.
Then I found this :
"Already, even before the First World War, interest in the future discipline of immunology had begun. In 1903, Jensen reported that tumour cells injected into mice grew better in some than in others. If such an injected tumour resolved, re-injection of identical tumour cells into the same mouse failed to produce another growth. In 1936, George Davis Snell, working in the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, began to study the behaviour of transplanted tumours. He developed highly inbred strains of mice over a decade of sibling mating. Within each strain, every mouse had the same genetic constitution. He showed that transplanted tumours grew in all mice of the same strain, but were rejected by all other strains."
http://www.bts.org.uk/about-the-bts/history/
I wouldn't get too hung up on when this is alleged to have taken place.
If recombination happened in this case, why not in other mouse human xenografts?
Does anyone know when mouse human xenografts were first attempted? From a quick google the earliest reference I could find was 1983 (Neuroblastoma) but must have predated this.
Then I found this :
"Already, even before the First World War, interest in the future discipline of immunology had begun. In 1903, Jensen reported that tumour cells injected into mice grew better in some than in others. If such an injected tumour resolved, re-injection of identical tumour cells into the same mouse failed to produce another growth. In 1936, George Davis Snell, working in the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, began to study the behaviour of transplanted tumours. He developed highly inbred strains of mice over a decade of sibling mating. Within each strain, every mouse had the same genetic constitution. He showed that transplanted tumours grew in all mice of the same strain, but were rejected by all other strains."
http://www.bts.org.uk/about-the-bts/history/
Dr Yes was talking about the BWG stage II blinded samples XMRV results cross-lab.
The first table is by Western Blot, and three out of six labs obtained false positives. The second table is plasma, and no-one had any false positives. All had false negatives.
Note that the CDC, as Yes said, had some of the best test results, finding XMRV in lower concentrations than the NIH or the WPI, and caught no false positives in the negative samples. I'm sure we saw this table at the BWG late fall/autumn last year. Since these tests were carried out, the CDC co-operated with CoOpDx, in the Satterfield study with a different test, which gave an 0/0 result.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366602 (headline and authors only)
The first table is by Western Blot, and three out of six labs obtained false positives. The second table is plasma, and no-one had any false positives. All had false negatives.
Note that the CDC, as Yes said, had some of the best test results, finding XMRV in lower concentrations than the NIH or the WPI, and caught no false positives in the negative samples. I'm sure we saw this table at the BWG late fall/autumn last year. Since these tests were carried out, the CDC co-operated with CoOpDx, in the Satterfield study with a different test, which gave an 0/0 result.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366602 (headline and authors only)
CBS, I agree.
I think it is a very good possibility that the US govt created the pathogen(s) that cause ME (and perhaps Lyme). The war on science and patients is too well orchestrated and has gone on too long for an innocent explanation to be plausible at least at the level of CDC and NIH top brass, and probably past presidents, maybe this one too. If the UK created it on its own i doubt it would have the pull to influence the US govt enough to deny it.
Something along the lines of SV40 in vaccines and Lyme possibly coming from Plum island.
If 'they' get me, you know why since i've started barking up this tree. : )
I think it is a very good possibility that the US govt created the pathogen(s) that cause ME (and perhaps Lyme). The war on science and patients is too well orchestrated and has gone on too long for an innocent explanation to be plausible at least at the level of CDC and NIH top brass, and probably past presidents, maybe this one too. If the UK created it on its own i doubt it would have the pull to influence the US govt enough to deny it.
Something along the lines of SV40 in vaccines and Lyme possibly coming from Plum island.
If 'they' get me, you know why since i've started barking up this tree. : )
Laurel, I think this encapsulates the whole mess nicely. They are playing word games calling XMRV a "contaminant" trying to hew to the public relations talking point. They define a retrovirus that everyone admits has been proven to integrate into human DNA in both fresh human cells and human cell lines as a 'contaminant'. Thelr definition of a 'contaminant' sounds a lot like an infectious human retrovirus. And that becomes apparent when they display dismay that this "extraordinarily infectious" "contaminant" has probably infected their lab workers.
Human, mouse xenografts.
How likely is it that you could mix together mouse DNA and human prostate tumour DNA and end up with an infectious retrovirus with tropism for human prostate tissue? Or that you graft human tissues into immune deficient mice and then detect MLV related retrovirus in the majority of patients with a neuroimmune disease?
Or that you decide that the XMRV found in prostate cancer and ME/CFS patients is really contamination which you can easily screen out by excluding mouse DNA?
The possibilities are limitless.
How likely is it that you could mix together mouse DNA and human prostate tumour DNA and end up with an infectious retrovirus with tropism for human prostate tissue? Or that you graft human tissues into immune deficient mice and then detect MLV related retrovirus in the majority of patients with a neuroimmune disease?
Or that you decide that the XMRV found in prostate cancer and ME/CFS patients is really contamination which you can easily screen out by excluding mouse DNA?
The possibilities are limitless.
Right. A lot of people think we exist 'outside of history' that those things that are now admitted by the govt decades after they occur don't occur now, but they do. Otherwise CIA, nevermind NSA, wouldn't have anything to do! And I'm not rabidly anti-CIA. My uncle is a former deputy CIA director. It's just a fact that historically deception and antidemocratic projects in the perceived interest of the US have been their stock in trade.
I think the mindset that dirty things have to be done to people as a necessary way to 'protect' the interests of the US has probably faded to a certain extent since the 50s, but still remains at the highest levels of government. The US govt isn't a "Skull & Bones production" any more, but vestiges of that influence remain.
The Bushes and Reagan were constitutionally incapable of admitting that the govt did stuff like this. Obama has his hands full and even if he knows, he may think it's too much for the public to handle now if all of the govt's dirty laundry were aired. He also seems to be moving towards the Cheneyesque ideas that some principles may have to be sacrificed in the interest of national security. I sound like a conspiracy nut, but the fact is conspiracies do exist and the weight of the evidence leans heavily toward the whole ME situation being one.
I think the mindset that dirty things have to be done to people as a necessary way to 'protect' the interests of the US has probably faded to a certain extent since the 50s, but still remains at the highest levels of government. The US govt isn't a "Skull & Bones production" any more, but vestiges of that influence remain.
The Bushes and Reagan were constitutionally incapable of admitting that the govt did stuff like this. Obama has his hands full and even if he knows, he may think it's too much for the public to handle now if all of the govt's dirty laundry were aired. He also seems to be moving towards the Cheneyesque ideas that some principles may have to be sacrificed in the interest of national security. I sound like a conspiracy nut, but the fact is conspiracies do exist and the weight of the evidence leans heavily toward the whole ME situation being one.
Oh boy, talk about denial!