XMRV revisited (Split from Hornig/Lipkin lawsuit thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
10,157
Likes
17,046
Kina
I have addressed and torn apart all your questions and posts on this. I answered everything with my posts previously about your criticisms. Just what kind of impression are u trying to give?
You have not provided any answers to any of my questions. I wouldn't consider posting the supplementary information from the retracted study or her response to the retraction as tearing all my questions apart.

You have yet to post any evidence to support your statements. Mikovits has never posted any research to support her statements.

Comments like the following are not proof of anything without including any actual proof of something:

Sad but true to say that we are looking at a massive error by multiple teams.
Mikovits was always right.
If u look at the supplementary material appendixed to the Science 2009 paper you see very easily what the negative papers failed to do.
Catastrophy.
If you so sure that multiple teams made multiple errors, then post the some actual examples with an explanation.

I am not trying to give any impression, I am trying to provide actual evidence to counter your comments so people reading this thread can read more than repeated rants with no actual evidence to support the repeated rants.

Take a holiday.
Chill out,a little.
You sound like you need it.
Ask the cdc for a ticket to the Caribbean !
I m sure they can do you that favour !
Have a cocktail !
Put your feet up !
And bill it on the cdc s accounts !!
How about knocking off the veiled insults and actually respond with some actual proof of your statements. Just because you say something over and over, doesn't make it true.

Let's not forget the 'slide of shame'.

http://parakoch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/mikovits-slide-of-shame-1.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...c-fatigue-syndr-29/+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Here's an explanation why bad science never dies with a mention related to Mikovits

https://qz.com/595909/why-bad-science-wont-ever-die/

And again here is a very recent study that was already mentioned in this thread

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28589117

XMRV and Public Health: The Retroviral Genome Is Not a Suitable Template for Diagnostic PCR, and Its Association with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Appears Unreliable.

Panelli S1,2, Lorusso L3, Balestrieri A4, Lupo G1,2, Capelli E1,2.
Author information
Abstract
A few years ago, a highly significant association between the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a complex debilitating disease of poorly understood etiology and no definite treatment, was reported in Science, raising concern for public welfare. Successively, the failure to reproduce these findings, and the suspect that the diagnostic PCR was vitiated by laboratory contaminations, led to the retraction of the paper. Notwithstanding, XMRV continued to be the subject of researches and public debates. Occasional positivity in humans was also detected recently, even if the data always appeared elusive and non-reproducible. In this study, we discuss the current status of this controversial association and propose that a major role in the unreliability of the results was played by the XMRV genomic composition in itself. In this regard, we present bioinformatic analyses that show: (i) aspecific, spurious annealings of the available primers in multiple homologous sites of the human genome; (ii) strict homologies between whole XMRV genome and interspersed repetitive elements widespread in mammalian genomes. To further detail this scenario, we screen several human and mammalian samples by using both published and newly designed primers. The experimental data confirm that available primers are far from being selective and specific. In conclusion, the occurrence of highly conserved, repeated DNA sequences in the XMRV genome deeply undermines the reliability of diagnostic PCRs by leading to artifactual and spurious amplifications. Together with all the other evidences, this makes the association between the XMRV retrovirus and CFS totally unreliable.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
12,977
Likes
23,957
There is no conspiracy.
Just plain conscious stupidity.
Stupidity is a common human trait, and science is certainly not immune from it. But that's different to what you were saying before, which is that the negative XMRV replication studies were fraudulent, implying that there was a global world-wide conspiracy to sweep XMRV under the carpet.

And if your want to demonstrate that scientists have made a mistake, you need to do that will logical argument and evidence. Nobody is going to listen to you until you provide a sober fact and logic based argument.



Quoting the Dr Judy Mikovits letter:
Detection of an Infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is accurate, and not one reported study has been able to show why it is not. Using four different methods including:

PCR (of cultured and co-cultured cells),

detection of human gammaretroviral (HGRV) viral proteins
(culture and co-culture detected by Western Blot and flow cytometry),

anti-gammaretrovirus Env antibodies in human serum (competed by 7C10 rat monoclonal antibody), and

virus isolation from primary cell and co-cultures,

we reported evidence of human gammaretrovirus infection in at least 67 out of 101 CFS patients. In addition, we reported that 3.7% of the control population had evidence of infection.
It should be noted that here Mikovits et al found evidence of a gammaretrovirus, not specifically XMRV. XMRV is part of the class of viruses known as gammaretrovirus, but gammaretrovirus also includes other viruses such as the murine leukemia virus, and the feline leukemia virus.

The PCR and the detection of gammaretrovirus proteins by Western Blot we can discount, because we know these are both in error (see here for why the Western Blot was in error).

As for the two remaining methods, I have very little knowledge of retrovirology, so I cannot give any opinion on how much weight we should attach to these findings. I have to rely on what the experts in the field say, and I don't remember any other virologist commenting on this finding of evidence of a gammaretrovirus.

But multiple experts from around the world have overturned the evidence that XMRV is found in ME/CFS patients, and so unless you think you know more that all these people, you have go with that conclusion.

So at present, we have no evidence for XMRV being involved in ME/CFS; but that does not rule out the possibility of another retrovirus or gammaretrovirus being involved.

Maybe when Dr Lipkin has a chance to look more deeply into the preliminary evidence he found of retroviruses in ME/CFS, we may gain further insight.
 
Last edited:

Hustler

I m a hustler
Messages
56
Likes
29
Location
Europe
Total joke
You guys are all on the run
I m loving it
Answered all your questions and you keep coming back with the same rubbish.
Enough has been shown here in this thread.
Nothing more to add
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
12,977
Likes
23,957
Another thing, @Hustler: you invariably find that when ME/CFS patients have been fortunate enough to gain full remission from their symptoms, they no longer hang around on ME/CFS forums, because they now have a full life to lead, and throw themselves into this new life with gusto.

So if you are in full remission, what are you doing here? Someone in full remission would be out enjoying themselves. Or could it be that you are not quite in the full remission that you claim you are?
 

dannybex

Senior Member
Messages
3,356
Likes
2,360
Location
Seattle
I answered everything with my posts previously about your criticisms.
Well, now that you've nailed hers down, try these, which you ignored:

If they had seen a link to autism before publication of their paper, why wasn't that mentioned in the 'original paper'?

Were children's lives not worth it until she decided she had no choice 'but to play the autism card'?

Where are the 'family studies' she's talking about and where's 'the fact' that there was an 'association' with all those other diseases?

If there's "no doubt", then why were there more than a dozen follow-up studies from all around the world that indeed showed 'doubt'?

If she claims that only 5% of people infected with "the virus" get sick, then how can she also claim that there is any association with a retrovirus and ME/CFS when 95% don't get sick?

If she's correct, then why isn't her life-long collaborator, Frank Ruscetti backing up ANY of the wild claims? Why didn't he endorse her book? Is he part of the conspiracy too?

And lastly, why, if there's a clear and obvious retroviral connection, hasn't the pharmaceutical companies that make billions off of antiretroviral drugs offered to fund her research?

That's nine specific questions. Please skip the haiku and provide nine specific answers.
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
Likes
4,956
I ll be at the pool table playing Lipkin and Coffin. Bring me some champagne over, or even better pour it over their heads for me will you...!
I'd rather pour it over Mikovist head.

There are so many well researched and informative responses that make this thread worth it. I have bookmarked some of the references.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,157
Likes
17,046
We don't usually discuss moderation issues on threads but in this case we feel it is necessary.

Hustler was banned last night after we discerned that he had been previously banned for multiple rule breaches.

He was not banned for any content posted on this thread or other threads.

Just wanted to make that clear because at times members make erroneous assumptions as to why a member has been banned.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.