- Messages
- 13,774
Of interest, the earliest leukocyte targets were CD4+ T cells and NK cells followed by CD8+ enriched T and CD20+ enriched B cells (50% positive); CD14+ monocytes were negative.
http://www.retroconference.org/2010/Abstracts/39393.htm[/QUOTEthe
they looked for the virus 144 days after infection the london study tried it in 18 bl**dy HOURS
http://www.retroconference.org/2010/Abstracts/39393.htm[/QUOTEthe
they looked for the virus 144 days after infection the london study tried it in 18 bl**dy HOURS
Gerwyn,
Maybe I'm not getting it, but wouldn't CFS patients, by definition, have had to have been "infected" (if that's what happened), and have developed symptoms, for at least 6 months to even get a diagnosis of CFS?
Are you confusing "infection" with "culturing" the virus for purposes of testing? I don't think the abstract mentioned anything about culturing the blood. (I realize my terminology is probably off. I have trouble following all this.) Just looks to me like you're comparing two different things.
Preliminary results showed evidence of detectable reactivity to all 3 antigens in a low proportion (~0.1%) of US blood donors.
Sure - I'd just noticed that myself. Thanks.
Preliminary results showed evidence of detectable reactivity to all 3 antigens in a low proportion (~0.1%) of US blood donors.
I changed the title, but there are so many other important aspects to this report besides the 0.1% XMRV positivity in blood donors.
I think the title should reflect the whole abstract:
"XMRV: Examination of Viral Kinetics, Tissue Tropism, and Serological Markers of Infection"
umm, guys what they are trying to say is that a very low proportion of blood samples showed Antibodies, what would equal less than 0.1% of their blood donors. This virus seems to have the ability to sneak by the immune system without creating an antibody response. That they have found. for now. we'll see.
Gerwyn,
Maybe I'm not getting it, but wouldn't CFS patients, by definition, have had to have been "infected" (if that's what happened), and have developed symptoms, for at least 6 months to even get a diagnosis of CFS?
Are you confusing "infection" with "culturing" the virus for purposes of testing? I don't think the abstract mentioned anything about culturing the blood. (I realize my terminology is probably off. I have trouble following all this.) Just looks to me like you're comparing two different things.
They used a technique called transfection using PCR products into cells and expected virus which would produce an immune response after 18 hours
This is analagous to infection In how long after an "infection" can you find viable virus at detectable titres.The researchers in the primate study had the sense to wait 144 days after their" transfection"
or deliberate infection proceedure
umm, guys what they are trying to say is that a very low proportion of blood samples showed Antibodies, what would equal less than 0.1% of their blood donors. This virus seems to have the ability to sneak by the immune system without creating an antibody response. That they have found. for now. we'll see.