WPI are finding XMRV in 99% in CFS patients (Is this news or a mistake?)

[Bob]

Does anyone know if the WPI has now found XMRV in '99%' of it's original ME patient samples, using their latest, most refined testing, or is this a typo?
(it was always reported as 97%, or was it 98%?)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723716

Annette Whittemore, president and founder of the Whittemore Peterson Institute, told Medscape Infectious Diseases that there are many reasons to continue to test for the virus. One is that retroviruses cause lifelong infection. Also, she said, more detailed testing has found that 99% of the original patient samples are positive for XMRV — far above the 67% the researchers reported.

"No other single pathogen has been found associated with this disease at this rate," she said.

Update: I think it's a typo, and they've confused the 99 out of 101 patients, with the percentage figure.

Thinking about it, it would only mean finding XMRV in one extra sample anyway... Sorry... brain not engaging today... had to wake up early today.

 

[Carrigon]

I think it's just too soon to know. I think the virus testing needs to be more refined first. It has to be more accurate. Then we all need to be tested and see if we show up with it.

 

[bullybeef]

This was the unpublished data after the Science study. I think it was 99 out of 101 ME patients.

 

[bullybeef]

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?940-xmrv-needs-4-tests-(Nov-09)

 

[ukxmrv]

Bob,

There was a similar quote from Dr Mikovits in the Independant newspaper report.

<indepenant quote>
But the senior author of the study, Judy Mikovits, director of research at the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nevada, said further blood tests have revealed that more than 95 per cent of patients with the syndrome have antibodies to the virus – indicating they have been infected with XMRV, which can lie dormant within a patient's DNA.

 

[Bob]

This was the unpublished data after the Science study. I think it was 99 out of 101 ME patients.

Thanks for that...
The percentage figure has always been 97% (or 98%?)...
I think they have confused the 99 out of 101 patients with the percentage figure... so it's probably a typo.

 

[alex3619]

Hi Bob

The 99 out of 101 translates to just over 98%. If testing really has improved, we will only see a very small increase in CFS XMRV prevalence. It is in the other associated diseases that we should see a big jump - autism, altypical MS, FM etc. It could, however, cause a major increase in population XMRV prevalence.

Bye
Alex

Thanks for that...
The percentage figure has always been 97%...
I think they have confused the 99 out of 101 patients with the percentage figure... so it's probably a typo.

 

[bullybeef]

The 99 out of a 101 was reported by Dr. Bell last year in a lecture he presented. Don't believe it ever was a typo even then.

 

[Bob]

The 99 out of a 101 was reported by Dr. Bell last year in a lecture he presented. Don't believe it ever was a typo even then.

But 99 out of 101 is 98%... not 99%... Anyway, I think the 99% figure is just a typo...
I think they meant to say 99 out of 101 samples, or 98%, just as it's always been.

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[bullybeef]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=200170205538

XMRV DNA was found from 68 of 101 patients (67%), and this was in the Science paper. That leaves 33 patients with CFS who were negative. But on further testing 19 of these 33 are XMRV antibody positive, 30 of these 33 had transmissible virus in the plasma, and 10 of these 33 had protein expression. Overall 99 of the 101 patients show evidence of XMRV infection.

The 99% maybe confused for 99 positives.

 

[Bob]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=200170205538



The 99% maybe confused for 99 positives.

Yes, thanks bullybeef... I think you're right... it was just a mistake in that article.