Cover-up and contamination theories

While the days, weeks and months pass, the scientific community continues to work on what isn’t, instead of what is. The question of how a lab contaminant produces an immune response in patients hasn’t been addressed by any of the contamination theorists. And how do you manage to contaminate the patients’ samples at a higher rate than the controls when all samples were blinded and run at the same time? In fact, it is the patients that are contaminated with a family of MLV-related retroviruses, not Dr. Mikovits’ lab.

This abstract was presented at CROI a few days ago:
XMRV Probably Originated through Recombination between 2 Endogenous Murine Retroviruses during in vivo Passage of a Human Prostate Cancer Xenograft. Paprotka
Many questions arise without the full paper, but it seems that far from showing XMRV to be a lab contaminant, the study shows what may in fact have happened. Endogenous retroviruses recombined in or infected human tumor cells through subsequent passages in vivo (in mouse) to produce a fully replicative xenotropic exogenous retrovirus, that in fact may prove to be the most infectious human retrovirus yet. In animals, similar viruses are communicated casually. Lombardi et al demonstrated that this new human retrovirus is circulating in the blood of as many as 10 million Americans. A public relations nightmare. So what did the scientists who said this was impossible do? First they denied its existence, then tried to suggest results were the result of mouse parts in their reagents, but none of the arguments have in any way refuted the data of Lombardi et al or Lo et al, who rigorously ruled out contamination. What they have shown is that it is possible to produce XMRV in a lab. Like the murine retroviruses, recombination events produce new pathogenic variants. See my post from September 10 about Sandra Ruscetti’s work: Lessons from the murine retroviruses

As for the 22Rv1 cell line being the source of XMRV contamination responsible for the whole mistaken affair, none of the labs involved in the Science paper Lombardi et al, have ever used this cell line. They couldn’t have contaminated subjects’ blood with virus produced by a cell line which all three investigators at different institutions can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt never entered their laboratories (personal communication). Sillier still, is the idea that this supposedly singular event was the source of infection, since it has only been around since the late ’90s: A new human prostate carcinoma cell line, 22Rv1. Sramkoski

My guess is that passing lots of human tissue through mice and then culturing in the laboratory for now more than four decades produced the conditions to enable a very unlikely event- by giving it many chances to occur. A probable place for this to have happened was in the creation of live attenuated virus vaccines where virus is made less virulent with multiple passes through animal cells in tissue culture. The earliest live polio vaccine was made by Hilary Koprowski using Swiss albino mouse brain cells. The first dose was administered to a child in 1950. He also used monkey kidney cells which were implicated in passing SV40 to humans. Albert Sabin’s live polio vaccine was produced from attenutated virus obtained from Koprowski.

Mouse cells and the cells of other species have also been used over the years in the creation of other vaccines. Some vaccines, including attenuated Measles and Mumps in the MMR, are grown on duck and chick embryo cells. Domestic fowl have endogenous retroviruses, avian leukosis viruses (ALVs or ASLVs), that do very similar things to the gammaretroviruses. Recombination events are involved in pathogenicity and they can infect the cells of other species in tissue culture. XMRV requires the XPR1 receptor to infect cells. The XPR1 receptor is ubiquitous in mammalian cells. Lab mice are resistant by virtue of XPR1 polymorphisms. The alpha retroviruses use a receptor called TVB. TVB is a tumor necrosis factor receptor that is most likely the avian homolog of a TRAIL (TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligands) receptor. Here is a paper about the receptor: A Fifteen-Amino-Acid TVB Peptide Serves as a Minimal Soluble Receptor for Subgroup B Avian Leukosis and Sarcoma Viruses. Knauss. The abstract contains the following sentence: “This peptide was sufficient not only for binding to ASLV-B but also for activating viral entry into mammalian cells that lacked the cognate viral receptor.”

Here are two recent papers that should be giving someone pause, but there is no evidence that anything is changing in the status quo at the CDC. Head in the sand or worse?

Beta retroviruses, e.g. mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV), may also be present in tissue culture of murine cells. The first PubMed paper seems to have been published in 1948 when the “milk factor” was first identified on electron microscopy in tumor prone mice:
A particulate body associated with epithelial cells cultured from mammary carcinomas of mice of a milkfactor strain. Porter
MMTV is a vertically transmitted endogenous retrovirus that causes cancer when it inserts near an oncogene. Vertical transmission of murine breast cancer by adoptive nursing was demonstrated in 1936 by Dr. John Joseph Bittner. It was formerly classified as a simple retrovirus, but transcribes a regulatory protein similar to HIV, so is the first complex murine retrovirus identified. MMTV codes for a superantigen that stimulates T lymphocytes which in turn stimulate B cell proliferation. At puberty the virus enters the mammary glands with migrating lymphocytes and infects proliferating epithelial cells. MMTV can be transferred exogenously or endogenously through the germ cell line; the later infection produces virus present in every cell of the body. Mice that acquire the infection this way have a higher incidence of tumors. In lymphocytes, it may cause a T cell leukemia. MMTV has an enhancer region in its U3 long terminal repeat that activates the virus in mammary cells. It is activated by estrogen and other glucocorticoids, including progesterone. It is especially responsive to the synthetic steroid Dexamethasone which has been used to induce lactation in the dairy animals. And a few new MMTV papers.

Gamma retroviruses are used as the backbone for gene vector therapy. It is known that retrovirus-mediated gene therapy of SCID-X1 can lead to leukemia and lymphoma because proto-oncogenes can be activated as a consequence of vector integration. Gammaretroviral vectors preferentially integrate near transcriptional start sites and CpG islands.

Another place for it to have happened or to be happening, as demonstrated by the Paprotka CROI presentation, is in the creation of human to mouse xenografts. It turns out that by transplanting human tumors into mice and passing the tissue through subsequent generations, it becomes possible to establish tumor cell lines that couldn’t be established before. Also xenografts are used to study tumors, e.g. specific tumor immunogenicity and response to treatments. Why the presumption that the recombination that occurred in the Paprotka experiment was a unique event? They were fiddling with mouse viruses in the lab in the 1930s. The first outbreak of Epidemic Neuromyasthenia was in LA in 1934 and involved hospital staff. And suddenly the CDC is worried about lab workers and testing archived specimens. Will they find it? It would be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.

Take a look at this fascinating paper that covers a lot of material including the problems with xenotransplantation:
The discovery of endogenous retroviruses. Weiss

Are we to believe this recombination event occurred only once and that a pathogenic MLV-related human retrovirus is only produced by one particular cell line? Told to us by some of the very scientists that said it was impossible? Anyone smell a cover-up? Much easier to destroy a seminal work than admit that there may in fact be a family of XMRVs. Careful reading of the Science paper shows that the monoclonal antibody used to detect XMRV envelope in Lombardi et al detects all known xenotropic, polytropic and ecotropic MLVs. Antibodies made by patients recognized specific envelope and gag proteins. PCRs were optimized for sensitivity, not specificity. And quite possibly there are many other recombinant animal retroviruses infecting humans as well, created in laboratories and injected into almost everybody in the industrialized world, because of arrogance.

Putting it all together, it seems quite plausible that batches of vaccines containing retroviruses that are infectious to humans have been going out for over half a century. Much of what I’ve written here has been known but ignored for a long time. The assumption was made that endogenous animal retroviruses couldn’t harm people. It’s becoming clear that this was a very incorrect assumption.

So is there motivation for the cover-up and baseless attacks against Dr. Mikovits? They cannot attack the data because it is impeccable. Coffin and Stoye wrote the commentary in Science. Have they retracted it? Coffin said at the CFSAC in October 2009 that “This is as good as it gets…”. If this were HIV/AIDS, the year would be 1983. We have much still to learn about human MLV-related viruses. Is it even remotely possible that the findings reported in Lombardi et al were the result of contamination of their reagents? No more likely than that the retrovirus described by DeFrietas et al in 1991 was contamination. Had the CDC done something then, we could have prevented the autism epidemic and a second generation of infected people. Instead they buried DeFrietas’ work by withdrawing all funding. Deja vu?

Did you like this? Share it:

96 thoughts on “Cover-up and contamination theories

  1. >Please don't disengage. And please contact me privately (jdeckoffjones@gmail). Why are you so angry? Because patients are speaking up and demanding what they have been denied? I am a disabled doctor beginning work in an administrative capacity. I have no patients. I am a patient. And the mother of a patient who need never have gotten sick. Please read Osler's Web.

    I certainly wasn't implying that the best research is done by the government, only that it is their responsibility. Center for Disease Control? Protect the public? The patient community is aware and very grateful to Drs. Frank and Sandra Ruscetti, Dr. Alter, Dr. Lo and the other researchers working on our behalf, including yourself I'm sure. But it's time for everybody to pitch in. You can't imagine what it's like to live with this illness. To watch your child suffer. Of course we want careful research, but research that is designed to move us towards treatment. And it needs to go more quickly than the status quo. Pregnant women write to me wondering what they should do. If I am manipulating, it is for more science, more money for the science, more research directed at finding out what's wrong and what to do about it. I pick on vaccines, because it is obvious from my mail that many, many people have been harmed, whether from the immune challenge, an endogenous animal retrovirus or infectious human retrovirus in the vaccine. Someone needs to figure it out. Quickly.

  2. >To the Anonymous Researcher Posting Here:

    Why, all of the sudden, are you concerned for our welfare, when no one has showed any interest for years? Why do you feel we need you to protect us? We are sick. Your right. However, we are adults who are perfectly capable of forming our own thoughts and opinions; and, defending ourselves. There are many of us that agree on the cause of this disease because of what we have experienced personally. No one is undully influencing anyone here.

  3. >I'm angry at the way you are distorting what happens in science and the medical research.

    Let me be clear: I understand the plight of CFS and the lack of research. I understand that it is a debilitating disease that puts people at the wits end since there is no clear cause to CFS. I do realize that you are dealing with the disease, and for that I'm sorry. I have already read Osler's Web long ago.

    I also understand that not enough research is being done. I completely agree, and in that sense I can understand what you are doing.

    But what I flatly disagree with is your portrayal of a government cover-up and inaction.
    It gives CFS the impression that no one cares about them and no research is being. There are SO many people in government working on this, including the CDC. The problem is they are not rushing to say that XMRV causes or has a link with CFS because there is not enough data. Simple as that.

    XMRV – CFS link is still just a THEORY. It has yet to be proven, and until that happens (which is currently being studies), no government agency will put the blame of CFS on XMRV.

    This is what everyone else doesn't understand – research takes time. Compound that with the incredibly complex disease of CFS, research will take forever. Which is sad because there is no quick way to do research without publishing misleading data.

    Unfortunately, you and your blog is spinning it the other way suggesting not enough research is being done. I flatly disagree with this statement and a TON of research on XMRV. The CDC plays very little role in long term infectious disease research simple because its a government agency. Better, fair, and unbiased results are obtained from academia.

    If you want more research to happen on CFS (with or without XMRV), this is the wrong way to do it. Tugging at everyone's heart strings with far-flung theories is simply unethical.

    Ok, now I'm officially done. I have to get beck to my experiments or else I'll never leave the lab tonight.

  4. >oopss – errata:

    I flatly disagree with this statement and a TON of research on XMRV.

    should read:

    I flatly disagree with this statement and a TON of research on XMRV.

  5. >The anonymous researcher must be joking when he/she reassures us all that 'active research is underway, even at the highest Govt. level'.
    Yeah right, would that be the same research that has been 'helping us all out', since the first recorded outbreaks?
    Well, if it is, then you can stick it where the sun don't shine cos it ain't working for us. I live in the UK and the Government has just given £1.5 million to the Medical Research Council, in order to undertake research on M.E.
    This is a massive step forward for the UK Government but let's get real folks!! This is a meagre and pathetic amount. It is totally disproportionate to the amount of people suffering from the illness and also the severity of the illness.It is infact laughable – yet people are pleased about it here!!It makes the news, as if it is a great achievement for us all.
    It IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. It is actually an insult really – a back-handed compliment, if you like.It will not wash with me.
    I don't necessarily buy the whole conspiracy theory about XMRV and Dr.Deckoff-Jones does not form my opinions for me either. However, I believe that the WPI and others are uncovering 'the missing link' here.
    The connection does exist between M.E and autism and vaccination and this theory is making more and more sense to many of us.
    Whether the Govt. chose to cover it up or genuinely missed the connection, I don't know but THERE IS A CONNECTION.
    Sometimes people (including scientists), can't see the wood for the trees. No one is invincible and no one is right all of the time.

  6. >So people get injured by a vaccine, and our anon well-meaning (sic!) researcher tells them that they only THINK they have been injured, because they read in the papers about one little tiny case study paper. And we are supposed to trust you with science, to trust you with our lives???

    Warbler512 said…

    "In Dr. McClure's press response when she said the future of XMRV research is up to U.S./NIH. she mentioned doctors used to think SV40 was a big deal but it had proved harmless. I wondered why bring up something not obviously related nor entirely accurate."

    Also very interesting how Robin Weiss, in one of the first "WPI somehow must be wrong" papers published last year, stated that (paraphrasing) he was sure XMRV relationship to CFS will come to nothing, just as the MMR link to autism came to nothing…"

    Very trust-inspiring! You guys certainly have a way with words. :)

  7. >oh and btw:

    Biologicals. 2011 Jan;39(1):33-7. Epub 2010 Dec 8.
    Contamination of infectious RD-114 virus in vaccines produced using non-feline cell lines.

    Yoshikawa R, Sato E, Miyazawa T. Laboratory of Signal Transduction, Department of Cell Biology, Institute for Virus Research, Kyoto University, 53 Shogoin-Kawaracho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan.

    All domestic cats have a replication-competent endogenous retrovirus, termed RD-114 virus, in their genome and several feline cell lines produce RD-114 viruses. Recently, we found that a portion of live attenuated feline and canine vaccines produced using feline cell lines was contaminated with infectious RD-114 viruses. In this study, we expanded our survey and examined canine vaccines produced using 'non-feline' cell lines. Consequently, we found two vaccines containing RD-114 viral RNA by reverse transcriptase (RT)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time RT-PCR. We also confirmed the presence of infectious RD-114 virus in the vaccines by the LacZ marker rescue assay and PCR to detect proviral DNA in TE671 cells (human rhabdomyosarcoma cells) inoculated with the vaccines. It is impossible to investigate the definitive cause of contamination with RD-114 virus; however, we suspect that a seed canine parvovirus type 2 was contaminated with RD-114 virus, because many canine parvoviruses have been isolated and attenuated using feline cell lines. To exclude RD-114 virus from live attenuated vaccines, we must pay attention to the contamination of seed viruses with RD-114 virus in addition to avoiding feline cell lines producing RD-114 virus when manufacturing vaccines.

    Biologicals. 2011 Feb 21. [Epub ahead of print]
    Development of a real-time reverse-transcription-PCR method for detection of RD114 virus in canine vaccines.

    Narushima R, Shimazaki T, Takahashi T. National Veterinary Assay Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 1-15-1 Tokura, Kokubunji, Tokyo 185-8511, Japan.

    It is known that certain feline cell lines, such as the Crandell-Rees feline kidney cell, produce an RD-114-like virus. As a feline endogenous retrovirus, RD114 virus, exists in the genome of all cats, it can be assumed that contamination with the virus in feline and canine live vaccines manufactured by culturing cells of feline origin occurs. To detect an infectious RD114 virus in vitro, a LacZ marker rescue assay has recently been established. In feline and canine live vaccines approved in Japan, feline cell lines are widely used to produce vaccines, especially those containing canine parvovirus components. The LacZ marker rescue assay detects infectious viral particles, but the real-time reverse-transcription-PCR detects both infectious and defective viruses. The canine live vaccines manufactured in cells of feline origin showed positive results for the env gene by the real-time reverse-transcription-PCR, including all of the 8 vaccines produced in feline cell lines that were negative in the LacZ marker rescue assay. In conclusion, the present investigation suggests that the newly developed method has the advantages of shorter time requirements and can be applied as a valuable screening method to detect RD114 viral RNA in vaccines.

  8. >"What I do not agree with is you using the emotions of your patients to stoke further fear and anger when so much is already being done on XMRV."

    We were angry and enraged long before this blog appeared. No one is manipulating us to be angry when we were not already so.

  9. >I am a CFS sufferer, and plenty p.o.ed about the way this disease has been handled by the CDC et al, but I have to say I agree very much with the anonymous XMRV researcher. I feel that this blog has gone "off the rails" in the past month or so, with excessive hypothesis-building and conspiracy-theorizing. It kind of creeps me out.

    I am not sure why we CFSers should want to link up with the vaccine theorists; it's just more ammunition for those who think we are crackpots. I'm not saying that there is no possible legitimacy to the theory that vaccines are in some way detrimental to human health, or possibly even connected to autism, although the evidence seems to be thin. What I am saying is that all of that is (at least as far I as know) not likely to be relevant to my battle as a CFS sufferer. Possible, I suppose, but not likely.

    I am so happy to hear from the XMRV researcher that lots of good science is currently underway on XMRV, and I believe him. If the Science paper was right, this is a huge public health threat, and many scientists of good will will want to be all over it. Science is not so enormously centrally organized that there could be a successful "cover-up" for long, even if the motivation was there.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Simon Wessley folks aren't part of a "cover-up" of sorts. They are. Likewise, the folks who've been in charge of CFS at the CDC. They probably haven't intended to do harm (most people don't), but for whatever reason, they've worked to minimize awareness of and attention to this devastating illness.

    The scientific process does take time. We have a right to be very angry about the neglect of this illness for the past 20 years. But I'm not sure it makes sense to be angry that things aren't yet farther along than they are after a piece of research published only a year and a half (not even) ago.

    It is important for all of us "patients" to keep the pressure up on the government to take CFS and XMRV seriously, but I really don't like to see this blog get drawn off into conspiracy theories, nor into absolutist stances about the role of XMRV in CFS. The Science paper was strong, and continues to give me a lot of hope (and concern for the public), but I don't want to pin every last hope and belief on XMRV. I have a terrible illness. I want a cure, or at least a reasonable treatment strategy. I don't really care what causes CFS. I would in many ways prefer if the cause were something less threatening to public health than XMRV. I just want the truth, though I know it will take a long time before it arrives.

    Dr. Deckoff-Jones, I notice that your tone has changed a lot since you started working with the WPI. Are the folks at the WPI on board with the vaccine hypothesis (and the conspiracy-theorizing)? Honestly, if so, that worries me a bit about the research program of the WPI. This would seem to be "jumping the gun" scientifically in a big way.

    Anyway, I will probably keep reading your blog, but I just wanted to make it clear to other readers that not all of the patients out here, angry or not, are on the same page with you (which, of course, you already undoubtedly know).

    I continue to be grateful for the work you are doing on behalf of other sufferers, and for your courage in undertaking and documenting your trial of ARV medication.

  10. >For those people old enough, do you remember when HIV was first discovered to have originated in monkies? The theory was that HIV infection was only able to move to humans because primates are a close "genetic" relative to humans. The general belief was that this was the only way a retro-virus could move from one species to another (it had to be genetic close match).

    Perhaps there is no conspiracy here and it is just a matter of denial. They (as in researchers) are having a hard time coming to terms that they have been wrong and still are. They were so sure of their theory that they believed retro viruses from lab animals were harmless. To admit that this particular retrovirus has spread would mean taking responsibilty for millions of people becoming infected. Maybe, this is too mutch to handle. It's easier to be in denial.

  11. >To the XMRV researcher:

    >These articles do NOT say that XMRV causes CFS or prostate cancer and there are many theories to be tested before anyone can say this conclusively. For example, one theory could be that the immune system of CFS patients (well-documented) is altered in a way to allow more opportunistic infections. This may prove true considering all of the other viruses that are found in CFS patients.

    Do you have any thoughts on what might be causing this alteration of the immune system?

    The Courgnaud et al commentary in PNAS mentions "environmental agents." Have you looked at what any of those might be?

    I bring this up because there is very clearly an extremely strong toxic mold connection to this illness that goes far beyond sensitivities to other environmental substances.

    I'm not saying that CFS is the same thing as Sick Building Syndrome. I'm saying that there's a specific connection to toxic mold as an underlying environmental agent.

    Toxic mold creates a large amount of inflammation, and thus logically would put pressure on the retrovirus to activate. This especially would be the case when herpes family viruses and/or Lyme are present, since those also are very inflammatory.

    I now have several dozen cases of individuals with classic documented ME/CFS who have demonstrated a severe hyperreactivity to toxic mold, following extended exposures to it. For example, a 30-second exposure to a moldy building is enough to keep them wholly sick for hours or days, unless they immediately shower and change their clothes after exposure.

    But insofar as they are able to avoid such exposures (in buildings, on objects and in the outside air) for extended amounts of time, they are able to regain close to full wellness.

    The phenomenon is hidden because of the "masking" that takes place, due to the fact that most people never remove themselves from moldy environments (including from their contaminated possessions) long enough to get their systems to settle down. What you will hear if you talk to people is, "Yes, I had an exposure, but I moved and it didn't get any better."

    It's only when people make a purposeful effort to get wholly away from the mold contaminations that they start to get better. It generally takes a number of months in a good environment to turn people around, presumably because the infections need time to come under control.

    This is not a cure. This is a clue. It's exactly the sort of question that you're asking — why is it that all of these infections are reactivating?

    I'd like to share with you and your team some more information about this phenomenon. It's been difficult to get people within the traditional CFS community to understand the importance of it — somehow it always just comes across to them as an oddity. Their response is, "But it's unrealistic for people to avoid mold that scrupulously, so I can't do anything with the information. So what if you can climb to the top of Mt. Whitney — I have a practice to run."

    But your comment about the idea that something about the ME/CFS sufferers' systems may be causing XMRV to activate is right on track.

    This is a legitimate phenomenon. I have doctors who will verify it and many documented case studies of people who have recovered. Dr. Deckoff-Jones is one of those people who is well aware of it.

    Thank you for your diligence in considering the complexities of all the factors that may be impacting this illness. That sort of sophisticated thinking is precisely what is needed if we are to work toward a cure.

    Cordially,

    Lisa Petrison, Ph.D.
    lisapetrison at yahoo

  12. >Thanks to the anonymous researcher for her/his views.

    Informed debate is desperately needed and I hope we will hear from this person more often.

  13. >Ahhh… Now we are getting a good discussion going based on the merit of the science and not fear, anger and desperation. And when I mean desperation, I do not intend any negative connotation. That fact remains that CFS is an incredibly complex disease with little results in research that often leaves patients desperate.

    A little more about myself without giving away my identity. I'm a postdoc working in a retrovirology lab and do not see patient samples, nor do I categorize which samples are positive or negative. Instead, my research is along the lines of basic science research. I study the viral life cycle on a molecular level with a focus on how XMRV is viewed by the innate immune system. Whether XMRV is a bona fide causative agent (or linked in any way) of CFS patients remains to be seen, however my research does not answer that. I study more on how the virus interacts with the host. My PhD involves the immune system and how the immune system senses incoming virus particles. I started working on XMRV as soon as the story broke from Urisman et al., and have generated antisera for other labs to use.

    My thoughts on XMRV, independently of whether there is PC or CFS relation, are more historical in origin. For some who may not know, XMRV belongs to one of three families of murine leukemia viruses (MLVs). Ecotropic MLVs are simple retroviruses that are capable of infecting only murine cells. Amphotrophic or Polytropic MLVs are capable of infecting any cell type (there are exceptions here), and Xenotropic MLVs have lost the ability to infect murine cells but now infect another species, but they originated in the mouse. The latter group is where XMRV falls in and clearly has jumped species to infect humans. This much is clear in my own experiments and the virus has amazing penchant for infecting prostate cells.

    Currently, all CFS samples from the WPI and from many other institutions (across the pond) are being re-evaluated in a double-blind manner. This lab, who I will not divulge the identity of, receives these samples without knowing their status or origin. There are multiple methods (PCR-based) techniques being used to identify the virus. More importantly, this is being done on a high-throughput scale in a facility that has never seen MLV research before.

    And I MUST stress the point of the prior sentence. As some of may know, there is a possibility that XMRV came from a lab contaminated source. I'm not saying this to induce a "cover-up" or anything of this nonsense, but to shed light on the origin of the virus. This is important because if it is a contaminant then the CFS research community must know this before money, time, and people's lives at stake.

    The contaminant theory is the most hotly debated right now in the field as it comes from some interesting papers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21352548

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171980

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171978

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171973

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171966

    The important thing to note here however is this directly questions the data from Urisman et al., and not the CFS study. To date, no data has been able to refute the Mikovits paper.

    That being said, the evidence is pretty strong for a contaminant. To sum up, XMRV integrated sites in the original Urisman paper is exactly the same as common cell line used in prostate cancer research. It is close to impossible for this to happen without contamination unfortunately. Unfortunately, that paper doesn't go into the other samples of the Urisman paper.

    I will continue in another post since there is a word limit…

    —–

  14. >Continued from previous post:

    istorically, cancer research has often used SCID or nude mice. These mice have no immune system and are models for studying the growth of human tumors once they are implanted. Decades ago, researchers would take cancers, inject them in mice, allow the tumor to grow, and isolate it back in cell culture. The problem is that mice have all three classes of MLVs (that I mentioned earlier) in their genomes, and the xenotropic MLVs in particular will infect non-murine (human) cells. These cells were then used for decades for prostate cancer research. This does not negate PC research but these cells (in partiuclar DU145) contain many combinations or recombined xenotropic MLVs and mouse DNA in general. Strikingly, this DNA is EXACTLY the same in the Urisman paper (unknown in the Mikovits paper).

    As for CFS patients, XMRV is still an enigma. Patient sample information must be divulged. Also, clones of the virus with integration sites must be tested to rule contamination. The virus from all these samples must be sequenced to obtain a genetic diversity map. This is ALOT of work that will take months to complete unfortunately, but it must be done.

    To answer whether XMRV causes CFS is an even more difficult question but there are methods. A animal model of XMRV disease must be established that is similar enough to human XMRV infection. A mouse model is obviously not the way to go since XMRV can not infect murine cells. Rat models however is a possibilty and I can tell you that there is active research on this front as well. I have seen the data, and XMRV can infect rats. Whether it causes CFS in rats unknown and may take years for CFS-like symptoms in rats to develop. Silverman's group is also working on a monkey model but the story is the same: CFS-like symptoms may pop up next week or never. Nobody knows.

    The last thing on MLVs in general that I want to point out is that they are more common than everyone realizes. Humans have been living along side mice for thousands of years and it doesn't surprise me in slightest that we have mouse DNA in our genomes. Whether polytropic or xenotropic, these mouse viruses have infected us in the past we all have the potential to carry them. I personally am not alarmed not surprised that we have MLV sequences. All it takes is one infection and integration event in the germ line to carry those sequences for thousands of years. The real trick is discerning that from an actual pathogenesis – very tough to do.

    —–

    As for current CFS research, unfortunately, I do not have an adequate background on CFS to give a solid conclusion on what causes it. My research focus is on retroviruses.

    Troubling to say the least since there is no known cause.

    One thing I know for sure is the immune system of CFS patients are altered in the extreme. The cytokine profiles and antibody production suggest an inflammatory response of some kind.

    I agree with the poster above that environmental triggers might play a role here.

    But here is my "scientific gut" instinct on what's going on. I feel it may a problem of an higher order function. In other words, combinations of different combinations might trigger CFS. For example (and this is just an example/hypothesis), one might have a genetic disposition for inflammatory responses. There is a trigger that feeds back to the immune system, which subsequently activates a genetic disposition for a nueropathology. This in turn further activates/depresses the immune system into a chronic state. Without knowing the history, I feel strongly that there may be genetic components to this.

    I hope this at least is an interesting read, and to future readers of this blog:

    again will have to continue on another post…

    —-

  15. >Continued from before:

    People do care about the link of XMRV and CFS, and active research is underway. More research is being done in academia than in government, which is how it should be. Also keep in mind that the highest level of government is involved. Simply awarding NIH grants to answer questions such as these is the best thing for government to do. One active way of supporting this process is to contact your local congress representative and tell them that reducing the NIH budget will adversely affect research and patients such as yourselves.

  16. >Something is up with this blog – part of my original post not showing up. Here is the beginning part:

    Ahhh… Now we are getting a good discussion going based on the merit of the science and not fear, anger and desperation. And when I mean desperation, I do not intend any negative connotation. That fact remains that CFS is an incredibly complex disease with little results in research that often leaves patients desperate.

    A little more about myself without giving away my identity. I'm a postdoc working in a retrovirology lab and do not see patient samples, nor do I categorize which samples are positive or negative. Instead, my research is along the lines of basic science research. I study the viral life cycle on a molecular level with a focus on how XMRV is viewed by the innate immune system. Whether XMRV is a bona fide causative agent (or linked in any way) of CFS patients remains to be seen, however my research does not answer that. I study more on how the virus interacts with the host. My PhD involves the immune system and how the immune system senses incoming virus particles. I started working on XMRV as soon as the story broke from Urisman et al., and have generated antisera for other labs to use.

    My thoughts on XMRV, independently of whether there is PC or CFS relation, are more historical in origin. For some who may not know, XMRV belongs to one of three families of murine leukemia viruses (MLVs). Ecotropic MLVs are simple retroviruses that are capable of infecting only murine cells. Amphotrophic or Polytropic MLVs are capable of infecting any cell type (there are exceptions here), and Xenotropic MLVs have lost the ability to infect murine cells but now infect another species, but they originated in the mouse. The latter group is where XMRV falls in and clearly has jumped species to infect humans. This much is clear in my own experiments and the virus has amazing penchant for infecting prostate cells.

    Currently, all CFS samples from the WPI and from many other institutions (across the pond) are being re-evaluated in a double-blind manner. This lab, who I will not divulge the identity of, receives these samples without knowing their status or origin. There are multiple methods (PCR-based) techniques being used to identify the virus. More importantly, this is being done on a high-throughput scale in a facility that has never seen MLV research before.

    And I MUST stress the point of the prior sentence. As some of may know, there is a possibility that XMRV came from a lab contaminated source. I'm not saying this to induce a "cover-up" or anything of this nonsense, but to shed light on the origin of the virus. This is important because if it is a contaminant then the CFS research community must know this before money, time, and people's lives at stake.

    The contaminant theory is the most hotly debated right now in the field as it comes from some interesting papers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21352548

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171980

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171978

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171973

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171966

    The important thing to note here however is this directly questions the data from Urisman et al., and not the CFS study. To date, no data has been able to refute the Mikovits paper.

    That being said, the evidence is pretty strong for a contaminant. To sum up, XMRV integrated sites in the original Urisman paper is exactly the same as common cell line used in prostate cancer research. It is close to impossible for this to happen without contamination unfortunately. Unfortunately, that paper doesn't go into the other samples of the Urisman paper.

  17. >Sorry, the spam filter has been catching some of your posts and I have to allow them through.

    Thank you for contributing.

  18. >Question for anonymous researcher on the following:

    "One might have a genetic disposition for an inflammatory response. There is a trigger that feeds back to the immune system, which subsequently activates a genetic disposition for a neuropathology. This in turn further activates the immune system into a chronic state."

    What about cases where your spouse becomes ill after you do? My husband and I both fit the Canadian criterea for CFS (including the neurological symptoms). I first became sick about ten years ago. I developed all of the symptoms slowly, over a period of years. A few years later, my husband became ill the same way I did, with the neurological and circulation symptoms developing later over a period of years. We were both diagnosed by a rhuematologist. We also saw a neurologist. All other infections, rheumatologic diseases and neurological illnesses were ruled out. My son has had the symptoms off and on for about 5 years. His usually come after another illness, such as the flu, and then dissappear a few weeks or months later.

    I have a hard time believing what is going on with us is purely genetic. But, I do believe we have a genetic suceptibility to whatever is the cause of this disease because my daughter is symptom free. My husband is not her biological father. However, because it appears that I passed this on to my husband, I strongly believe that whatever is making us sick is contagious (virus or bacteria).

  19. >Hi anonymous researcher. What's your take on some people having XMRV antibodies show up on tests? That's can't be due to lab contamination, only the body can produce that.

  20. >Bubbles:
    The antibodies might be cross-reactive and not specifically anti-XMRV.
    See comments at Dr Racaniello's post 'Authenticity of XMRV integration sites' http://www.virology.ws/2011/03/02/authenticity-of-xmrv-integration-sites/ See first comment from Snail (about 1/4 way down page and, as at 10 March, labelled "6 days ago")

    See also ERV's comments at Derek Lowe's blog http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/01/11/xmrv_its_ugly_but_thats_science.php
    Her comments are nos. 43 and 46 (January 16 & 17 2011)

  21. >Thank you so much, anonymous researcher. You explained all that so much more clearly than I have seen it explained elsewhere. I hope you will continue to keep us informed about what is happening in your lab and elsewhere, as you learn about it.

  22. >I'm no scientist, but I don't see how one could explain the cluster outbreaks with genetics….that is unless a very huge aspect of the populace is genetically predisposed.

    I am glad to hear that there is much xmrv research being done behind the scenes. But this current amount of research is unprecedented with anything to do with this disease, and is in no way a reliable measure of the amount of research we had received prior to Oct 2009 (which was nill). We have for many years felt betrayed and abused by those we pay to protect our health. It is not conspiracy theory to believe that our health agencies have made every effort to make this disease a non disease and leave us for dead…it's a fact. Our feelings are valid. It may help people gain some trust to hear more about all these covert studies on xmrv and cfs, rather then just reprimanded for being too emotional.

    From my perspective, it seems lacking a true understanding of our history to believe that Dr Jamie has any control to manipulate our emotions and perceptions. We have been at this cruel game long before her blog appeared.

    As far as the vaccine idea goes….it's just a hypothesis, but it's one that I have believed for several years now. There is plenty of strong anecdotal evidence of the vaccine association to neuro-immune disease. We know for a fact that it can trigger these diseases…we just don't know (yet) about it's contribution to cause beyond that.

    I do appreciate some qualified challenging views, but I'm still in the contaminated vaccine camp…and I was years before this blog.

  23. >Another point along these lines is the Hospital outbreaks involving many of the staff, but not the patients. That couldn't possibly be genetics or infectious disease. What's left?

  24. >What's left?

    Why not come back to Incline Village and ask someone who was standing there and watched it go down, when this whole crazy thing happened?

    We're not all dead yet, so it's kind of silly for people to talk in front of us as if we weren't still here to offer some clues from our own perspective.

    -RAD survivor "Raggedy Ann Disease"
    (If you aren't familiar with that term, look it up in Osler's Web)

  25. >I have been trying to read anything I can, when I have the energy, on retroviruses. In particular, I have been reading articles about animal retroviruses. It is my understanding that some animals do not become infected after being exposed to certain retroviruses that will infect others of their species, at least not long term. For example, Feline Leukemia Virus—Some cats can fight off the virus right after being exposed and never get sick. In other cats, the virus remains dormant for years until they become older or ill with something else. Sometimes the virus remains dormant for a lifetime. And, then, of course, there are those cats that become infected, the virus spreads, and they die. As I understand, it all depends on how healthy the cat is when they come in contact with Feline Leukemia Virus and how genetically inclined they are to develope long term infection. (I am not a scientist. I could have interpreted this wrong.) Nevertheless, if this is the case for some animal retroviruses, then couldn't it be true for a retrovirus infecting humans? The point I am trying to make is that a person shouldn't come to the conclusion that this is not an infectious virus and must be a genetic disease because certain close family members do not become sick while others do. We are used to hearing about HIV which, when entering the blood stream, 99% of the time results in a long-term infection throughout the body. XMRV is not HIV.

  26. >>I'm no scientist, but I don't see how one could explain the cluster outbreaks with genetics….that is unless a very huge aspect of the populace is genetically predisposed.

    Outbreaks could be explained by an "environmental agent" though.

    Insofar as average cases of an outbreak are much more severe than the average cases of people suffering from the same disease in other places (e.g. as occurred in the Lake Tahoe epidemic in the mid 1980s), environmental agents should be the #1 suspect.

    An infectious agent should not be expected to present more severely in one geographic cluster area than in others that occur at the same moment in time.

    But an environmental agent certainly could (and likely would) be worse in some places than in others.

    Insofar as the environmental agent primes people for becoming (especially) sick from the infectious agent, it may look like the difference is the infectious agent (e.g. that Lake Tahoe had some unusual virus or super-strain of a virus).

    In that circumstance, a good idea might be: look harder for "background" environmental factors specific to that one geographic area.

    Otherwise, you might miss something really important.

    >Another point along these lines is the Hospital outbreaks involving many of the staff, but not the patients. That couldn't possibly be genetics or infectious disease. What's left?

    Again, environmental agents. (And these are excellent questions, scientist or not.)

    For example…. let's say that a hospital is contaminated with a lot of toxic mold. (You'd be surprised at how many are.)

    Then let's say that it takes people a long time being exposed to toxic mold before they are much affected by it. (That's true too.)

    Thus, the staff (who work there over time) are primed for getting sick. The patients (who are there for only a short period of time) are not.

    Now, assume that the mold exerts its toxicity primarily by causing shifts in the immune system, making people more susceptible to certain pathogens.

    Thus, when the infectious agent rips through, it settles in the systems of those people who are primed – the hospital staff.

    This has the potential of being a bit more complex than most people imagine.

    I'm extremely heartened by the comments made by the Anonymous XMRV Researcher, since they suggest that at least some people working on the virus are thinking about the problem in a manner appropriate to that possibility.

    Best,

    Lisa Petrison
    lisapetrison at yahoo

  27. >To the Anonymous XMRV Researcher:

    >I have seen the data, and XMRV can infect rats. Whether it causes CFS in rats unknown and may take years for CFS-like symptoms in rats to develop. Silverman's group is also working on a monkey model but the story is the same: CFS-like symptoms may pop up next week or never. Nobody knows.

    Let's say that XMRV only results in CFS in people if they've already been exposed for an extended period of time to certain kinds of environmental agents (like certain strains of toxic mold and toxic cyanobacteria).

    If that's the case, there's no particular reason to think that XMRV would result in CFS in monkeys or rats either, unless the environmental agent is present.

    Thus, without the environmental agent, you could wait around for decades trying to get the rats and the monkeys to come down with CFS and never get anywhere….. even if the model were EXACTLY the same as the human one.

    So my question is:

    I have environmental agents. There are a couple of them. Very specific ones.

    How can I get to the people who are doing the studies with the rats and the monkeys to tell them about it?

    Thanks very much for your help.

    Cordially,

    Lisa Petrison, Ph.D.
    lisapetrison at yahoo

  28. >Anonymous researcher said:

    "But here is my "scientific gut" instinct on what's going on. I feel it may a problem of an higher order function. In other words, combinations of different combinations might trigger CFS. For example (and this is just an example/hypothesis), one might have a genetic disposition for inflammatory responses. There is a trigger that feeds back to the immune system, which subsequently activates a genetic disposition for a nueropathology."

    Vaccines can and DO act as triggers that feed back the immune system. You should know that. You should also be aware that there is PLENTY of HIV research showing this to be the case in humans – vaccinations trigger retroviral replication and spread. (or would you like some references???. There also plenty of research showing that the same thing happens in animals, ie vaccines acting as immune stressors and reactivators of already present, latent, retroviral infections, and/or set off a cascade of inflammatory and autoimmune responses. Go figure.

    Would you like some references, or would you rather go on ignoring the inconvenient science?

  29. >To the anonymous researcher posting here: It's great to hear from people working on the XMRV/"CFS" question. Thank you.

    I have limited concentration so I skim read a lot here. I did read your post though, and what I took from it was that you’re frustrated (perhaps angry) by those you feel unqualified to comment on XMRV research doing so regardless, and letting their emotions get in the way of science.

    I may be wrong (you may well have been toiling away in the lab for years on this) but I'm guessing that your research into "CFS" is relatively recent? By that I mean you haven't been along for the "CFS" ride for decades, perhaps only since XMRV arrived on scene? If so, it's possible that you don't fully appreciate where these cover-up theories come from. Due respect, but you’d have had to have been here for the long haul to understand. As a patient group, we are a bit fixated on those involved in researching XMRV’s association to “CFS”, with good reason. Some of us have been horribly sick, for decades. I imagine (hope) someone like yourself who is researching XMRV would be aware that we're talking AIDS and cancer patients in the final months of their lives level of sickness. This is about as serious as survivable illness gets. I'm not sure how well that comes to life when looking at cells on slides in a lab.

    For many of us, this has been going on forever. I’ve been sick 28 years, others longer. During those 28 years there’s been no appreciable progress in finding the cause of the illness, nor any advancements in treatment. Not a single, solitary advancement that has resulted in a drug that can help me (at the very least) feel better. Nothing… Twenty eight years. I live every day with a degree of pain which only opiates can control. This lack of advancement is in part because the CDC stole money that was allocated to research the illness. A cover-up of appalling magnitude followed (this is fact, not a conspiracy theory). In addition, the illness was trivialised, and memos ridiculing the illness and patients were posted on notice boards for the fun of the scientists at the CDC who were supposed to be finding out what caused the illness. The CDC, for all the world, still appear to have no interest in investigating this illness. Mr Reeves (who emerged from the scandal slimy but intact) told us the day of the Science paper release that he did not expect XMRV to show any relationship to “CFS”. A self-fulfilling prophecy as it turns out, and a fairly clear indication that he still had zero interest in “CFS”, having no grasp of XMRV at the time of his prediction.

    The reason blogs have sprung up voicing paranoia about cover ups is because they have been part of the misery of living with this illness. Not only have we been horribly ill, we have evidence that the people whose mandate it has been to help us don’t give a damn. We feel, rightly we suspect, that there is more invested in disproving associations than proving them because careers and reputations are at stake. Meanwhile, we are dying.

    There have been thousands of papers published showing immune abnormalities in this illness, and now evidence of a retroviral infection in higher numbers of "CFS" patients than controls. As I said, I don't understand the science but it seems a bit unlikely that a contaminant would favour the patient group over the controls more than once, doesn't it? Especially ones with an acquired immune disorder. I don't really care about the need to prove XMRV is not a lab contaminant. You’re probably appalled by that statement but then you may not know where I’m coming from. I am a living ghost. I watch life, I don’t live it. I look like an AIDS patient. For me, the prima facie evidence on XMRV is sufficient to test and treat. I am a person living a nightmare, not a collection of cells on a slide. Science needs to catch up with me. I penned this last April. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=154801179671&topic=13091 Nothing’s changed.

  30. >"Vaccines can and DO act as triggers that feed back the immune system. You should know that. You should also be aware that there is PLENTY of HIV research showing this to be the case in humans – vaccinations trigger retroviral replication and spread. (or would you like some references???. There also plenty of research showing that the same thing happens in animals, ie vaccines acting as immune stressors and reactivators of already present, latent, retroviral infections, and/or set off a cascade of inflammatory and autoimmune responses. Go figure".

    I absolutely agree. The questions remains, knowing these facts to be true, why does the CDC, endorse and create required massive vaccination programs without first studying who may be at risk for these horrific "triggered" adverse reactions? If they have known about this for some time….what's up? And why is this information not included on the vaccine consent forms? Lots of other why's, but I'll stop there since they all have the same answer anyhow.

    They could continue with the absolutely essential vaccines, while creating screening programs to protect the groups at risk for adverse vaccine reactions. It would save massive amounts of suffering. My guess would be that they have no intention of creating such screening programs since their theory is that without vaccinating the entire herd (including those at risk for vaccine related diseases), they cannot control the disease. Maybe it's viewed as a bonus to have all the risk group put in bed forever where they can't spread disease.

    Viruses are masters of evolution and hopefully we haven't given them a "leg up" via vaccine. It seems our only hope is full transparency as science continues to unfold the truth. Maybe the science will move forward, but I'm not holding my breath on the transparency part.

  31. >Lisa P…great idea with the possibility of mold affecting immune function over time. I was thinking the only remaining "what else" would be vaccines since the hospital staff would be required to get them, but not the patients. I also thought that anything environmental (ie, toxic spill, etc) would effect the staff and patients alike. But your theory makes good sense to me. You got me thinking, and I like that.

  32. >My husband is sick as well. Not even 3 years after being married. Infectious , Contagious and or sexually transmitted??
    Why does no one get the WPI has stated very clearly they found infectious virus replicating in the blood of patients. They never used 22rv1 or VP62 this saga is far from over . We are infected and sick and need treatment and therapies now . We want a family , jobs and a life!

  33. >ErikMoldWarrior: While that may be true that no one from the Tahoe outbreak has 'fully recovered', that doesn't mean that others haven't elsewhere.

    It's SO TYPICAL to get responses like the one above who say that the women from Punta Gorde interviewed for "I Remember Me", possibly "didn't "totally" recover. Maybe they just learned to live within their "bubble".

    Watch the documentary. They're recovered. Maybe it was a small percentage, but they recovered.

    I do appreciate both Lisa P's and yes, Erik's input, but perhaps the reason that more people don't listen to them, is because, with all due respect, Erik (at least 90% of the time) always has some patronizing or snarky comment, and Lisa repeatedly fails to mention other possible environmental exposures besides what she herself (oh, and several dozen others) have experienced.

    It should be noted that Jamie has reported that the majority of patients who told her they had improved or were improving, were those who avoided doctors and expensive specialized treatment.

    Isn't that true Jamie?

  34. >London Times 1987: Smallpox Vaccine Triggered AIDS epidemics

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/577245/london_times_smallpox_vaccine_triggered.html?cat=5

    "…Dr Robert Gello, who first identified the Aids virus in the US, told The Times: 'The link between the WHO programme and the epidemic in Africa is an interesting and important hypothesis. 'I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV. 'No blame can be attached to WHO, but if the hypothesis is correct it is a tragic situation and a warning that we cannot ignore.'”

  35. >Dr Peterson made the observation that "not one" of his cohort has fully recovered.

    Perhaps people elsewhere might not have
    Dr Petersons phenomenon?

    I suppose you would have to ask him why he has not personally witnessed any full recoveries.

  36. >I appreciate your reply Erik, and you're probably correct, it would be best, and most interesting to ask Peterson himself why he hasn't witnessed any 'full' recoveries.

    But if not a single one of his cohort has recovered (interesting that he doesn't consider you recovered Erik), then why is he so highly regarded? He's certainly dedicated his practice to working on helping patients as best he can, and he is to be commended for that.

    This is just a guess, but perhaps if he stopped focusing so much on viruses and other infections, and put more emphasis on other factors like molds, heavy metals and other environmental factors that can disrupt immune function then he might have a better track record.

    The same with Cheney. Why he's so highly regarded when his track record was "zero" as of two years ago is truly confounding. Especially at the astronomical fees he charges.

    Even Dr. Klimas, who charges a fraction of what Peterson or Cheney do, has patients who have indeed fully recovered. Not many, but some.

    Anyway, thanks Erik.

    BTW, do you consider yourself recovered, or "in recovery mode' as long as you avoid toxic mold?

  37. >I really dont believe any scientists will cover this up.
    There are many good people working on XMRV.
    perhaps XMRV did come from vaccines from the lab? and if they did i'm quite certain the scientists will publish this data and agree.
    I think we are lucky, some really good people are working in this field, – if we all work together im in no doubt we will get the answers and I believe the scientists are here for us!
    perhaps the government may put more of a fight up but the scientists im certain are doing the right thing.

    3 cheers for all the XMRV scientists!

  38. >My immune system is still shot to H.

    If I fail to practice an extraordinary level of avoidance, I fall apart within days.
    So it's a very odd kind of recovery.

    Still, it beats the H. out of being dead or disabled. I've managed to get a lot of "life" back, much more than I dared hope for.
    I thought it was a really amazing "effect", and that researchers would be interested in pursuing this clue.
    Now…. the amazingness of this clue has been superseded by the even greater amazingness that no CFS researchers ARE interested.

    This lets me know that if I, or anyone like me, were looking for help with this particular bizarre reactivity phenomenon, they most certainly wouldn't get it.

    And I thought they were looking for anything that helps! How very odd to find out that they are not!

  39. >Not just a little bit not!

    A whole LOT of "NOT!"

    Not if it's not under their streetlight!

  40. >I have been having an ongoing debate with a fellow blogger about the contamination issue but am completely out of my depth since I have no scientific background. This probably sounds trivial in comparison but what can I say in response to one such attack from this blogger:

    "Is it impossible that chance played a role in which patient sequences were contaminated? As I remember the original study only had around a 100 people with CFS, and 200 controls. And in response to the presence of an immune response, contamination could produce an immune response in cell samples. Lombardi et al., was not an infallible study. There were serious design flaws and misleading claims in the article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/825.1.full
    It is annoys me when people refuse to accept that scientist make mistakes. Not every study is the gospel truth, and there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Lombardi et al., was one such study."

  41. >Look people, while in the past I have suffered the fools on these forums….I no longer have the time or patience to hold hands and make friends. I have lost 20 years of my life due to CFS and I dont care about hurt feelings anymore.

    First of all, Dr Anonymous Researcher, dont patronize us with your "Johnny Come Lately" rhetoric about patients getting angry and this blog is just conspiracy….blah, blah, blah. Save that crap for the CDC and NIH morons and people that believe our government would never lie to us or deceive us to our detriment. You must think we have never seen this dog and pony show before. Good researchers and doctors have been hammering the CDC for the last 2 decades for them to get off their ass and do something, but they have been stonewalled and given the cold shoulder at the highest levels of government.

    Of course there is a cover-up at the highest levels, why does that have to be a conspiracy theory??? That is just common sense to anyone who has suffered or followed the drama over the past 2 decades. The conspiracy theorists are the ones who pop up on these forums and say they are doing GREAT research and just keep the faith, only a few more years. Well, you can take your GREAT research and stick it up your ass. I dont believe a word you say nor do I believe anything that comes out of the CDC or NIH.

    Of course the tone of this blog has changed since Dr Deckoff-Jones has joined the WPI efforts recently. Any educated person can see what is going on with the denial and moving of the goal posts when the CDC has to replicate the results they are finding in the field. Read Oslers Web, ask the Dr's at Incline Village, ask Elaine Defreitas, ask Hillary Johnson…..there is a coverup of HUGE proportions going on and thats why they continue to deny, deny, deny any progress within the CDC. We are talking a militarized biological weapon and you are not going to get anyone at the top of our government to cooperate with the findings among scientists in the field. The outbreak of CFS in the 80's mirrored the same outbreak of HIV, its just a different variant of the same disease. One kills you and the other makes you wish you were dead. There were similar outbreaks in the past on a very small scale, but nothing like we are seeing at the present time. Its a biological weapon that is being spread thru vaccines or possibly from ticks or mosquitoes…..Once it is in the population, it has spread thru casual contact or other means. People need to wake up, its not a conspiracy, this is really happening. Dont be a naive sheep, open your damn eyes.

    And LisaPetrison and ErikMoldWarrior…..you guys have done some great work, but give it a rest with the mold theories. Do you have to invade every forum and give a dissertation on how mold causes everything. God, they make medication for obsessive compulsive disorder…..lol…..You are just taking away from the real cause with these side-line theories that have affected you two individuals. Yes, mold is a very bad thing and it is deadly. But its not the cause of CFS or MS or Lupus….let it go please

  42. >CFS is caused from a biological weapon created by the military. Why do you censor my posts??

    If we cant be real, then why have this discussion??

    This is why nothing is getting accomplished within the CFS world. Chasing great white whales and pretending we are making a difference.

    The truth is its all a cover up. Why cant we have an honest discussion???

  43. >Dr. Deckoff-Jones,
    1.WHY “WHODONIT”? Do you seriously believe that an “evil donor” could persuade Abbott Labs to fake data or one of the top virologists in the world (Jay Levy) to conduct a ‘shoddy’ study for the sole purpose of discrediting the XMRV story? We know that Abbott labs was interested in developing an assay to detect XMRV and WANTED a positive study. Abbot properly disclosed that they hold patents, meaning that they would benefit from a positive finding. Why not assume that they were trying to find XMRV and could not?
    2.“INCONCEIVABLE”? Why do you assume that it is “inconceivable” that Peterson no longer believes that retrovirus is associated with CFS? The association has been suggested but hardly proven. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe that Peterson entered into a study to try to shed more light on the question of whether XMRV plays a role — or not?
    3.“EGO, REVENGE OR MONEY”. You state that Peterson’s desire to “bury XMRV” has to be about “being right, ego and revenge, or money”. Is it impossible for you to assume he wanted to learn the truth? This is the explanation that would be consistent with his track record of standing up for CFS patients since the mid-80’s.
    4.BURY XMRV? Why do you assume the authors of this paper wanted to “bury XMRV” because they agreed to let an outside lab test patients from the same practice as the original Science study? What is WRONG with testing patients from the same practice?
    5.ROCHE, ABBOTT, ETC. I do know that Roche has no further interest in CFS patients. The subset with HHV-6 is very difficult to identify with existing assays, and they do not have much time left on their Valcyte patent. I can assure you that they are not trying to “bury” XMRV. On Abbott, Knox said they came to her because she has tested Peterson’s patients for years and has a biorepository.
    6.CDC. I think we all agree with you here. There is much more that could be done. For starters, we have to start looking in the brain tissue, not the blood.

Comments are closed.