New paper on hold

[JennyJenny]

It's a study on mice with a mouse virus.

Exactly. I can't wait for their Feline AIDS studies. Anyway...

XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome: So long, and thanks for all the lulz, Part I


"Normal human sera hates XMRV and MLV-like-whatever viruses."

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/05/31/xmrv-and-chronic-fatigue-syndr-23/
"It means if I took a blood sample from you, yes, YOU, right now, and took out all the cells. Thats your sera. If I mixed your sera, right now, with XMRV or MLV-blah-blahs, your sera would neutralize the virus. Yours. Right now."


http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Xenotropic...#Abbie_Smith_ERV_blog_series_of_XMRV_research

 

[Hustler]

If you have a healthy enough immume system?

But the neutralising antibodies were pinned to Silverman


The biggest medical cock up EVER

 

[weyland]

Weyland,nothing scientific at all in your arguments

Seriously? All I have quoted you is science from peer reviewed research. All you have given me back is youtube video clips. I am here, willing to engage with you because I don't dismiss retroviral involvement in this disease, but I want to see clearly laid out evidence from research papers and all you have given me is incomprehensible fragments and anecdotes that have no obvious reference. If you believe so strongly in this hypothesis you must have seen some evidence somewhere to convince you, I'd like to see this evidence as well.

Lack of cross reactivity between Herv K and SFFV Env


Lane 1-4 = NP7 IP with 7C10
Blot with Indicated antibodies

Lane 5 and 6 = cell lysates


NP-7 - mouse line expressing lots of SFFV gp55

MCF-7 human breast line expressing HervK env

7C10 rat monoclonal Antibody against SFFV gp55

Reference?

Experts who themselves have used sffv 7c10 GP55,55, extensively say it is unlikely there is crossreactivity

Reference?

Nobody else has dared defend De Meirleir on his sffv 7c10 gp assertions.

Reference?

Harvey Whittemore hired De Meirleir.
Harvey Whittemore went to jail.
Lipkin was open about the Lipkin study being negative even before it was concluded. In the design phase even.
Pretenders pretending to care.
And they seem to have found a crowd in you

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

 

[weyland]

@Hustler I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on why GRVs should still be on the table following these studies:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/1/346.full
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1126/science.1204963
http://jvi.asm.org/content/85/14/71...d06b896b9bc1178cbc342f5c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://science.sciencemag.org/conte...07525f1654914695ae90c20f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

[garnet10]

Does this article have any relevance to this discussion?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109487/#!po=76.8182

 

[Hustler]

I think so garnet, yes

 

[garnet10]

Exactly. I can't wait for their Feline AIDS studies. Anyway...

XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome: So long, and thanks for all the lulz, Part I


"Normal human sera hates XMRV and MLV-like-whatever viruses."

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/05/31/xmrv-and-chronic-fatigue-syndr-23/
"It means if I took a blood sample from you, yes, YOU, right now, and took out all the cells. Thats your sera. If I mixed your sera, right now, with XMRV or MLV-blah-blahs, your sera would neutralize the virus. Yours. Right now."


http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Xenotropic...#Abbie_Smith_ERV_blog_series_of_XMRV_research

Is Spleen Focus Forming Virus (SFFV) one of the MLVs (Murine Leukemia Virus)?

And is this writer saying that it is not unusual that a human would make antibody to a murine retrovirus?

 

[weyland]

Is Spleen Focus Forming Virus (SFFV) one of the MLVs (Murine Leukemia Virus)?

Yes it is.

And is this writer saying that it is not unusual that a human would make antibody to a murine retrovirus?

It's not unusual, no. Our immune system makes antibodies to proteins that have never yet been in our body. This is how T and B lymphocytes work (VDJ recombination). You will have some fraction of IgM in your blood that could neutralize an epitope on a murine retrovirus envelope for example, regardless of whether you've been exposed to it or not.

 

[garnet10]

@weyland, what do you make of what Dr. Mikovits says in this interview:

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=18960

It sounds like she is saying her lab did find something similar but not identical to Silverman's XMRV?

 

[weyland]

It sounds like she is saying her lab did find something similar but not identical to Silverman's XMRV?

That's what she says yes. Unfortunately we never got to find out what exactly it was that she found because she was fired and none of the 5+ other labs that looked for MLVs beyond XMRV could find anything.

As far as I know the only thing that was replicated that still stands are the antibodies that Mikovits and Lipkin found. The problem is that serology is a very indirect and potentially inaccurate way to look for these things. We need confirmed, contamination free PCR, sequencing, and proof of proviral integration before we can really get excited about this. If Judy isn't going to continue her work I doubt anyone else is going to touch it now because it would be seen as wasting too much funding on something that so many other labs couldn't find.

 

[Hustler]

They never looked !!!!

 

[weyland]

They never looked !!!!

That's a pretty bold assertion, Hustler. I assume you have some equally bold evidence to back that up.

So, what you're saying is that the conspiracy runs so deep that they were able to convince 5+ different labs, close to 60 authors (including Mikovits), and countless lab technicians to all lie and commit research fraud, publishing papers saying that they tested for MLVs when they never actually did?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/1/346.full

• 3. Our attempts, through collaborations, to demonstrate antibody in affected patients, to isolate the virus by culture, or to show integration sites in the human genome have failed to support the initial findings.
• 4. While recall of eight patients from the original cohort 15 y later showed pMLV gag sequences in seven, the copy number was very low and phylogenetic analysis showed these sequences were not direct descendents of the original dominant strains (4). Still later samples from four of these patients tested negative in the NHLBI panel. While this result could be explained by viral clearance over time, it fails to support a sustained retroviral infection in human cells.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6038/94

We evaluated blood samples from 61 patients with CFS from a single clinical practice, 43 of whom had previously been identified as XMRV-positive. Our analysis included polymerase chain reaction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction procedures for detection of viral nucleic acids and assays for detection of infectious virus and virus-specific antibodies. We found no evidence of XMRV or other MLVs in these blood samples.

http://jvi.asm.org/content/85/14/7195.abstract

We collected blood samples from 100 CFS patients and 200 self-reported healthy volunteers from the same geographical area. We analyzed these in a blind manner using molecular, serological, and viral replication assays. We also analyzed samples from patients in the original study that reported XMRV in CFS patients. We did not find XMRV or related MLVs either as viral sequences or infectious viruses, nor did we find antibodies to these viruses in any of the patient samples, including those from the original study. We show that at least some of the discrepancy with previous studies is due to the presence of trace amounts of mouse DNA in the Taq polymerase enzymes used in these previous studies. Our findings do not support an association between CFS and MLV-related viruses, including XMRV, and the off-label use of antiretrovirals for the treatment of CFS does not seem justified at present.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/814

...we compiled coded replicate samples of blood from 15 subjects previously reported to be XMRV/MLV–positive (14 with CFS) and from 15 healthy donors previously determined to be negative for the viruses. These samples were distributed in a blinded fashion to nine laboratories, which performed assays designed to detect XMRV/MLV nucleic acid, virus replication, and antibody. Only two laboratories reported evidence of XMRV/MLVs; however, replicate sample results showed disagreement, and reactivity was similar among CFS subjects and negative controls. These results indicate that current assays do not reproducibly detect XMRV/MLV in blood samples and that blood donor screening is not warranted.

And not only that, but they also convinced Maureen Hanson, who has a son ill with ME, to also lie on her study? But this time they convinced her to claim that she did find evidence of MLVs even though she didn't actually look, but then also convinced her to claim later that she couldn't rule out contamination? (ref)

I suppose the journals would have to be in on it too, so the government must have got to several journal editors, referees, and peer reviewers to get them to all agree to publish all these fraudulent studies that claimed to look for MLVs but never actually did?

Did I capture your conspiracy theory correctly or am I missing something? Perhaps you can clarify who you mean by "they" and what you mean by "never looked".

 

[Vaporization]

So, what you're saying is that the conspiracy runs so deep that they were able to convince 5+ different labs, close to 60 authors (including Mikovits), and countless lab technicians to all lie and commit research fraud, publishing papers saying that they tested for MLVs when they never actually did?

Perhaps it is not so much an issue of how deep, but rather how wide.

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=18960

When they destroyed all of our work, and discredited everything I or Frank Ruscetti had ever published, and arranged for the publication of my mug shot in Science, the NIH very deliberately sent the message to researchers everywhere about what would happen to any honest scientist who dared ask those important questions.

 

[Hustler]

Yeah

 

[JennyJenny]

XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome: Isnt that weird?


"And yet the CFS samples shipped to Bob Silverman in 2009 were contaminated with XMRV PLASMID before his lab touched them, after WPI touched them, after Silverman gave them the VP62 plasmid.
Isnt that weird?
I think thats just weird.
I mean, how would you get weird results like that?
Thats just so weird!
Huh.
Well, I guess Silverman thought that was weird too, so he took his lab off the paper.
And lets just say, I dont think he did anything wrong. I think he did what any scientist would do, were they in his position. I think he actively recognized that something was ‘weird’ and investigated it, determined the root cause, and corrected the field."

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/09/26/xmrv-and-chronic-fatigue-syndr-28/

Comment #16

Joe

September 26, 2011
"This may explain why Mikovits kept vehemently insisting that none of the labs that were getting negative results were following her protocol. It was because they were all skipping the step where she added the VP62 plasmids to the “+CFS” samples."


And this is why everyone agrees it was not contamination. It was the nicest way to say 'You put VP62 "into" the CFS samples purposefully.'

 

[Hustler]

Was in a different part/wing of WPI from where Mikovits did the Science work.
It had to be as she was weary of Slvmn

 

[JennyJenny]

Perhaps it is not so much an issue of how deep, but rather how wide.

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=18960

Perhaps she just put VP62 into the CFS samples. (See Comment 35 on this thread.)

 

[Hustler]

Her part of the lab that did the Science work never got anything from Silvermam

 

[JennyJenny]

Her part of the that did the Science work never got anything from Silvermam

"She soon enlisted Ruscetti, who had worked in Gallo's lab when it discovered HTLV-I, to screen blood samples from Peterson's patients for viruses. Intrigued by the RNase L link to XMRV, Mikovits and Lombardi—who by then had joined WPI as well—met Silverman in October 2007 at a prostate cancer conference in Lake Tahoe, where they discussed the possible role of XMRV in CFS. Silverman was happy to collaborate and sent WPI a clone of the virus, known as VP62. The institute could use it as a reference to start hunting for the virus in CFS patient blood samples that Peterson had stored."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1694.full?sid=b7ed914a-6290-4f3f-a625-2c4d4557472f

 

[weyland]

Perhaps she just put VP62 into the CFS samples. (See Comment 35 on this thread.)

This may or may not have happened, accidentally or on purpose.

Regardless, the blinded multi-lab study is the clincher to me. WPI couldn't reliably detect spiked positive controls, and inaccurately found negative controls as positive. And the most bizarre part to me is that Mikovits claimed to have no issues culturing virus all this time, then when it came time to actually put up or shut up, their culture samples mysteriously were contaminated with mycoplasma, and they for some reason couldn't re-run them?