WSJ- Seeking New Blood-Supply Test

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,513
Likes
849
In data presented by the Cleveland Clinic researchers at an NIH XMRV workshop in September, 26% of 120 prostate-cancer patients had XMRV in the urine, compared with 8.5% of healthy controls.
The detection rate in healthy controls is always either 2-8% or there is absolutely no XMRV detected in any patients.

Is there any way to reconcile the detection rate in healthy controls (and the very consistent detection rates in both CFS and Prostate Cancer patients) between the positive studies and the zero/zero studies (aside from looking for different pathogens and or with different tools - methodology!)?

I'd be far more concerned (not that I'm not getting really impatient) if there were studies finding 2-8% detection rates in CFS patients or prostate cancer patients but studies with those rates of detection simply do not exist.
 

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
517
Location
Los Angeles, CA
You know what's nice to see? A sense of urgency, that's what's nice to see.

Seems that there are a lot of efforts moving forward by a lot of different groups and companies. Doesn't seem to mesh well with the "nothing to see here" message we so often get elsewhere...
 

Jemal

Senior Member
Messages
1,031
Likes
65
Thanks for digging up that post. It almost looks like there's a frantic effort to get good tests out and I like it :D
 

Jemal

Senior Member
Messages
1,031
Likes
65
Roche? Yes, that's my country (well, my second one, in the heart, but nevermind)! Finally...
Unfortunately it looks like Roche isn't fully convinced yet? ;)

He said Roche wants more "specific proof that XMRV is a virus of concern and it is possible to transmit through blood transfusions."
 

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,513
Likes
849
In light of all the work going on by a number of labs (studying transmission and creating tests of viral load - all looking at imaginary viruses and viral fragments causing contamination?) - what will Fauci do if Lipkin doesn't find XMRV/MLV's (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23prof.html?ref=health)?

Statements like “If he can’t find it, it probably doesn’t exist.” do not seem very bright at this point in the game (remember the NTY's quote by what's his name who used to run the CDC's CFS effort until he got canned last February). I was hoping Fauci was brighter than that, but perhaps not.
 

FancyMyBlood

Senior Member
Messages
189
Likes
97
You know what's nice to see? A sense of urgency, that's what's nice to see.

Seems that there are a lot of efforts moving forward by a lot of different groups and companies. Doesn't seem to mesh well with the "nothing to see here" message we so often get elsewhere...
This is what struck me as well. But now thinking about it, I don't know if this is necessarily a positive thing (meaning XMRV is associated with ME/CFS) . If we take a look at the past(HIV), the more they denied, the more reason to take it seriously. Let's just hope they learned from the past.

Btw, does anybody know to which specific situation Amy is refering to in this quote?
A key challenge is that these are still early days in understanding XMRV. Researchers usually calibrate tests against clinical samples that everyone agrees are positive and negative for the virus. A successful test would correctly determine which samples are infected. In the case of XMRV, there isn't yet scientific consensus. Some labs have said they cannot find XMRV in blood samples from patients that other labs have deemed positive.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Unfortunately it looks like Roche isn't fully convinced yet? ;)
Yes, too bad. I just read this too, when i posted first, i read about Roche in the initial part of the article. It's better than nothing and they are good at Roche, but it's a bad mentality. Don't they realize that in this way you can never be first and you will only arrive when everything is already divided? You have to take the risk, not any of course, but you do.
 

August59

Daughters High School Graduation
Messages
1,617
Likes
627
Location
Upstate SC, USA
I like the part about Mary Kearney having an extremely sensitive test that can actually measure XMRV viral load!

Just getting this information out to us, even though the info is a little scattered, is a good thing. It's really what we needed, just a little transparency!! Thanks!
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I light of all the work going on by a number of labs (studying transmission and creating tests of viral load - all looking at imaginary viruses and viral fragments causing contamination?)
Hehehe, yes. I hope the future will not punish me for laughing now, but it looks as if the air for the contamination people is getting thinner... They will get some of their medicine. I'm usually forgiving, but here i want to see some people pay.

What would be really crazy, is if we find out in a couple of months that maybe people like Dr. McClure were only playing the "bad cop" to help keep things calm for the time needed, but i don't think so. Let's see.
 

FancyMyBlood

Senior Member
Messages
189
Likes
97
Yes, too bad. I just read this too, when i posted first, i read about Roche in the initial part of the article. It's better than nothing and they are good at Roche, but it's a bad mentality. Don't they realize that in this way you can never be first and you will only arrive when everything is already divided? You have to take the risk, not any of course, but you do.
Well it is at least a very positive sign that Gen-Prob, who have been working with the blood-working group, did see an urge in developing a test. Also Roch is a commercial company, even if they did have information they'd probably not announce it out of competition perspective.
 

Jemal

Senior Member
Messages
1,031
Likes
65
Btw, does anybody know to which specific situation Amy is refering to in this quote?
Not sure if it's a specific situation she is referring to. There have been several occassions where researchers swapped blood samples and got different results. I think the NIH even found a positive that the WPI thought was negative...
 

Jemal

Senior Member
Messages
1,031
Likes
65
Well it is at least a very positive sign that Gen-Prob, who have been working with the blood-working group, did see an urge in developing a test. Also Roch is a commercial company, even if they did have information they'd probably not announce it out of competition perspective.
I do have high hopes now that commercial companies are involved. Yeah, it's all about the money, but these guys want results. As fast as possible, as they are basically burning money as long as they are not selling treatments. After all those years of neglect many of us have had to endure, change can't come fast enough.
 

FancyMyBlood

Senior Member
Messages
189
Likes
97
Not sure if it's a specific situation she is referring to. There have been several occassions where researchers swapped blood samples and got different results. I think the NIH even found a positive that the WPI thought was negative...
Indeed, I also remember reading things about positive samples from the CDC study. The WPI also found positive in samples used by the Dutch study. And Ruscetti found XMRV in the Adler study IIRC. Heck, there happened so many new things in ME/CFS and along with my brain fog it's very difficult to keep track of it all.

But since this is a new article, I thought maybe she's refering to something new.
 

George

waitin' fer rabbits
Messages
851
Likes
80
Location
South Texas
You know what's nice to see? A sense of urgency, that's what's nice to see.

Seems that there are a lot of efforts moving forward by a lot of different groups and companies. Doesn't seem to mesh well with the "nothing to see here" message we so often get elsewhere...
This is the kind of reporting that Dr. LeGrice hates. (grins) all that urgency that according to him is not happening. "we are not frantic", "we are not in a frenzy" to quote him from the CFSAC science day. (grins) I kept thinking at the time that "they" should be at least moving with urgency you idiot and that the statement would not bode well if XMRV turned out to be a pathogen. If XMRV has any kind of role in cancer or ME/CFS or anything else, people are going to want to know why there wasn't urgency later on. But yeah this piece is nice it gives you a feeling that the researchers are on top of things.

eric_s said:
Preliminary evidence for transmission?? Never heard that before. That's when things will start to scare the public, when this gets out. Get ready for a big wave. Maybe...
There were two prostate cancer studies done early on that showed XMRV in prostate secretions. But they really got no attention at all. which I think was a bit worrisome. It wasn't till the WPI showed the potential for blood borne infection that things got interesting. (grins)
 

George

waitin' fer rabbits
Messages
851
Likes
80
Location
South Texas
I light of all the work going on by a number of labs (studying transmission and creating tests of viral load - all looking at imaginary viruses and viral fragments causing contamination?) - what will Fauci do if Lipkin doesn't find XMRV/MLV's (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23prof.html?ref=health)?

Statements like “If he can’t find it, it probably doesn’t exist.” do not seem very bright at this point in the game (remember the NTY's quote by what's his name who used to run the CDC's CFS effort until he got canned last February). I was hoping Fauci was brighter than that, but perhaps not.
I have to say I'm not happy with the NIH's pushing Dr. Lipkin as the answer to the question. I'll take a lot of labs looking at this a lot of ways rather than one guy running up and down stairs sticking his head in to various labs and working on a hundred different crisis. Hey I watched ReGenisis too ya know. It didn't always turn out well. (grins) I'd rather have someone like Dr. Singh taking her time and doing it right. Or Dr. Klimas working on assays or the Ruscetti's exploring possibilities. One guy, doing one study, which incorporates all the questions and then answers then in one fell swope just makes me very uneasy.

To get around that problem, researchers at Abbott, Cleveland Clinic and Emory University created their own positive samples by using blood from monkeys that were infected with XMRV in the lab. "There is always doubt about human samples, but there are no ifs, ands, or buts about the animals being infected," says Robert Silverman of Cleveland Clinic, whose lab is working with Abbott and receives research funding from the company. Dr. Silverman also could receive royalty payments from Abbott because of XMRV patents licensed to the company.
I love this quote. This was really a smart thing to do. The fact that the monkeys are infected really takes this out of the realm of politics and puts it firmly in the area of reality. I don't see how in the world you can "infect" and keep a monkey "infected" with a bit of mouse DNA contamination. (grins)