Cort
Phoenix Rising Founder
- Messages
- 7,383
Dr. Lombardi apparently stated (at least according to Kean) that 36% of the 300 tests VIP Dx labs have processed so far are postive for XMRV. Two things spring out at me; one the idea that this was an at least somewhat unusual cohort are probably true. On the other other hand 36% is a pretty big chunk of the ME/CFS population.
Unfortunately we don't know if he was referring to PCR or PCR and Culture. I would assume he was talking about both - that would suggest, though, that the percentage of those with an 'active' infection is down to maybe, what 20%? Of course we do know that a latent infection (confined to the white blood cells) can still have marked effects. (We also know that an active infection will not necessarily have negative effects (aka the healthy controls)).
We have a tremendous amount to learn: in particular who's testing positive - (what kinds of patients they are); are people with an active infection generally worse off than those with a latent infection? Are people who test positive worse off in general than those who do not?
We also don't know how much the test will change over time. Given the concern of standardization we have to expect that the test for XMRV will change - we just don't know if there will be big changes or really small tweaks - but it will very likely be different from the VIPDx test.
Only 300 tests! - We do know why our poll results have been so paltry - only 300 tests. In two months (40 days or so) only 300 tests done; that's about 8 a day. Why so slow? (Was Kean right about that?) Are they still tweaking the test?
(The Importance of the Title - I have a rather extravagant title up there - thats because it became clear during the Imperial College outburst that title makes a huge difference in how well Google picks up posts)
Unfortunately we don't know if he was referring to PCR or PCR and Culture. I would assume he was talking about both - that would suggest, though, that the percentage of those with an 'active' infection is down to maybe, what 20%? Of course we do know that a latent infection (confined to the white blood cells) can still have marked effects. (We also know that an active infection will not necessarily have negative effects (aka the healthy controls)).
We have a tremendous amount to learn: in particular who's testing positive - (what kinds of patients they are); are people with an active infection generally worse off than those with a latent infection? Are people who test positive worse off in general than those who do not?
We also don't know how much the test will change over time. Given the concern of standardization we have to expect that the test for XMRV will change - we just don't know if there will be big changes or really small tweaks - but it will very likely be different from the VIPDx test.
Only 300 tests! - We do know why our poll results have been so paltry - only 300 tests. In two months (40 days or so) only 300 tests done; that's about 8 a day. Why so slow? (Was Kean right about that?) Are they still tweaking the test?
(The Importance of the Title - I have a rather extravagant title up there - thats because it became clear during the Imperial College outburst that title makes a huge difference in how well Google picks up posts)