The intrepid Dr. Mikovits went up against Darth Vader today in Ottawa. In the face of incredible adversity, she took the heat. For us. And she points the way to the next step. Next Generation Sequencing. Here are her slides. Click each to enlarge. May the force be with her. Brava!
>@Muckle
I see that you are now starting to blatently twist my words.
– Silverman has admitted his eeror, but not to the degree you are referring to. He has explicitly stated that the contamination is from an outside source, possibly the WPI lab who sent him the samples.
– I did not admit that WPI/NCI didn't screen the Lo samples, because Ruscetti's lab did screen the Lo samples. And found XMRV and an antibody response. Before he didn't in blinded retesting. No, no, it's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords….
– I did get the idea that Mikovits was a co-author, as her name was written on top of the paper as one of the authors. The "author affiliations" section also contains Mikovits. Indeed, silly me.
– Thank you for your insults. I actually feel rather flattered.
>@RRM
Please don't insult the intelligence of anyone. You would produce something tangible if that were true, instead you are here empty handed.
Frank Ruscetti nor the WPI were given Lo's samples to screen. How about you read the paper.
You have no idea how such a study is formed. Neither Ruscetti, Lo or Mikovits would have written the paper. Only those not blinded to all aspects could have done this. Not sure many would find that flattering.
>I have not said that they literally "wrote" the paper. I am saying they were both co-authors and, as such, at the very least read and approved the text of the paper before it was submitted.
Frank Ruscetti was given Lo's samples to screen. He got these samples from Lo. No, he didn't get them for the purpose of this study, but that was never the intention, and I (and the scientists involved) fail to see why that would be necessary.
I have read the paper. Did you see the Mikovits presentation in which she admits that Ruscetti's lab was able to isolate virus from Lo's 2010 samples, as well as detect an immune response?
So you honestly believe that Frank Ruscetti, when revisiting these samples for this study, really thought "oh, well, let's try something completelt different from last year when I found the virus in all of those samples"?
>@RRM
Silverman has said nothing about the outside world.
People like Mikovits and Ruscetti were minor players in the BWG. They neither had control nor wrote the paper.
Ruscetti was not given the Lo samples for pre-screening. Again, where is your proof?
"Frank Ruscetti was given Lo's samples to screen. He got these samples from Lo. No, he didn't get them for the purpose of this study, but that was never the intention, and I (and the scientists involved) fail to see why that would be necessary."
Are you saying you are a scientists involved in the BWG?
The Lo samples/patients tested for other reasons than the BWG, are not the same samples or patients used in this study.
Where are you claiming Ruscetti has changed assays?
>@Muckle
– From the official Cleveland Clinic blog:
"The source of the contamination is not known, but Clinic officials say it occurred outside their labs."
– Mikovits and Ruscetti were co-authors, they approved of the text of the paper, or else they should have opted to leave their names off of it.
– The proof that Ruscetti screened the Lo samples is in the youtube video I referred to above. Just look for "Mikovits Sweden" and select part 2 of her talk. To spare you the effort, this is what Mikovits literally stated:
"Frank Ruscetti – Harvey asked Frank if he would isolate the virus from these patients. He did so and he detected XMRV, suggesting that our cell line preferentially replicates XMRV.
Importantly, Rachel Bagni also showed an immune response in these 9 samples 15 years later."
Judy Mikovits
– And no, I was not saying that I was a scientist involved in the BWG. If I were, I would have stated "I (and the OTHER scientists involved)", but I didn't state that.
– The Lo samples are samples from the very same patients, but of course they aren't the same samples. If the original samples were contaminated, you wouldn't want to reproduce this. You always independently validate a finding like this in another study by not using the very same samples. It would be a criminally stupid thing to do, frankly.
I am not claiming that Ruscetti changed assays. I am assuming he is intelligent and used the same assays, but did not validate his earlier findings using these same assyas.
>@RRM
Where is your Silverman quote?
If you now agree that the paper is far to much of a mess that it should be retracted I do agree.
Ruscetti and Mikovits did not screen the Lo samples for this study. Are you ever going to read the paper? You are discussing separate experiments that are unrelated to the BWG. The same goes for Bagni. You really are very funny.
"but that was never the intention, and I (and the scientists involved) fail to see why that would be necessary."
This is your comment. Are you a scientist on the blood working group?
" You always independently validate a finding like this in another study by not using the very same samples. It would be a criminally stupid thing to do, frankly."
Then where is this stated in the imaginary paper you claim to have read?
"I am not claiming that Ruscetti changed assays. I am assuming he is intelligent and used the same assays, but did not validate his earlier findings using these same assyas."
You have now accused Frank Ruscetti of lying about the assay he used in Lombardi et al. I'm frankly horrified that you would sink so low. It really is not supportable.
>@ anyone / everyone who thinks HGRV research should now be abandoned…
Please tell me why my body is producing antibodies to something that was called XAND at the time of testing.
My sister was very recently diagnosed with Breast Cancer, the most aggressive type (inflammatory).
We need to know something!!!
Sorry for the Anon post, but I hope people will understand.
>@Muckle
I know I am funny, but thanks anyway.
– I know that Ruscetti and Bagni did not pedigree the Lo positives during this study. WPI did also not validate the new WPI samples either.
Ruscetti/Bagni however validated, outside of the scope of this study, but they still "validated" that the Lo 2010 samples did contain XMRV/HGRV's, as well as an antibody response. This is compelling and relevant information.
– Are you seriously arguing that the offical response of the Cleveland Clinic does not reflect the opinion of its most prominent researcher? Not only that, but is contradicting it totally?
I must admit, if I ever need someone splitting my hairs, I will contact you.
– Yes, that is my comment. Although I am not English/American, I think my English is okay. And I frankly do not see how your quote suggests that I am a member of the BWG. I just fail to see how some additional retest would be necessary, and the people from the BWG fail to see how it's necessary too. That is what my quotes tried to communicate, but apparently it has failed.
– You asserted the samples were from different samples AND patients from the ones Ruscetti/Bagni retested. I merely explained that they were the same patients, but that these weren't (naturally) the exact same samples as for the BWG study.
– I have not accused Frank Ruscetti of lying at all. I am sorry to hear you are horrified but it is really the result of your own reading skills.
For the record: I was not at all talking about Ruscetti's Lombardi/BWG assays but about the Lo retesting/BWG assays.
>@RRM
None of what you are saying is backed up by the BWG paper.
Of course a spokesperson for the Clinic doesn't speak for Silverman. The BWG paper doesn't speak for the HHS, NIH, FDA or CDC.
" I just fail to see how some additional retest would be necessary, and the people from the BWG fail to see how it's necessary too. That is what my quotes tried to communicate, but apparently it has failed."
As the completing the culture assay is not retesting, this explains your confusion.
There is no evidence of who the Lo patient were. Such information is kept secret. They were never screened in this study by the NCI or WPI. So no validated assay was used on them for pre-screeing. That is what the paper conclusively proves.
You are unsure of your English but are adamant it is good enough to not insult Frank Ruscetti. Your comment was that he "used the same assays, but did not validate his earlier findings using these same assyas." If it is the same assay as in the paper, which you can check for yourself, then it would have been the validated one. Are you even able to state what assays were used?
>@Muckle
ALL OF THE NINE 2010 LO SAMPLES were tested by Ruscetti/Alter. ALL OF THEM.
Lo selected 5 of these 2010 samples for the BWG study.
Ergo, even if such evidence is "kept secret", this conclusively shows that Ruscetti/Bagni screened the EXACT same patients in the BWG study as they did in 2010.
– I did not mean to say that about F. Ruscetti. I read that back and gladly admit that I stated that wrongly. I meant to say that I am assuming he is intelligent and did not change his assays when he knew his assays would work on 100% of Lo's samples.
>RRM you are trying to bring in testing that was never done for the BWG, where only a handful were retested. You cannot know who they were. You are still making nasty comments about Frank Ruscetti.
The Lo samples were never checked by a diagnostically validated assay.
>@RRM
The research you are discussing was not done for the Blood working group and why would you know who the patients were.
>Does this:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/09/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_29.php
change anyones interpretion of the data in these slides?
>As we've been discussing over at ERV's little home on the web, slide #13 is essentially meaningless. Aside from the picture of the gel being the one from the 2009 paper and not a new one, the controls do not include 5-AZA "normal" PBMCs. Thus, you have nothing to compare the "infected" patients. Controls are used in science for a very good reason; without them you cannot interpret your experimental groups, rendering your data meaningless.
-Poodle Stomper.
>From Gerwyn Morris:
…
After the initial period HGRVs are cleated from the blood and become indetectable by PCR
The antibody response also fades away
The viruses remain readily detectable by PCR in tissue This is typical for a mulv class virus
So both WPI and VIP do (and did) tissue testing then?
>Whatever else is going on th aere is a bit murky. All I can say is that money isn't the motivation for the Whittemores. They want to save their daughter's life and they have the resources to aim at her disease. Our disease. I'm happy to tailgate and benefit from whatever they find out. Even checking off what it isn't is helpful. And my understanding is that people on antiretrovirals are getting better. Hope so; getting to the point where I'll need the heavy artillery.
>@Tony Mach
The WPI would have been moving the research into tissue assays. Kind of obvious. It had to start with the blood as where else is best when you have no focus for a particular organ in the body?