virology blog

About viruses and viral disease

Cleaning up after XMRV

XMRVThe retrovirus XMRV does not cause prostate cancer or chronic fatigue syndrome – that hypothesis was disproved by the finding that the virus was produced in the laboratory in the 1990s by passage of a prostate tumor in nude mice. A trio of new papers on the virus attempt to address questions about the serological detection of XMRV in prostate cancer, and further emphasize that XMRV is not a human pathogen.

Absence of XMRV and Closely Related Viruses in Primary Prostate Cancer Tissues Used to Derive the XMRV-Infected Cell Line 22Rv1. The human cell line 22Rv1, which was established from a human prostate tumor (CWR22), produces infectious XMRV. It was previously shown that DNA from various passages of the prostate tumor in nude mice (called xenografts), did not contain XMRV, but cells from the mice do contain two related proviruses called PreXMRV-1 and PreXMRV-2 which recombined to form XMRV between 1993-1996. In a new study samples of the original prostate tumor CWR22 were examined for the presence of XMRV or related viruses. PCR assays targeting the viral gag, pol, and env sequences failed to provide evidence of XMRV in CWR22 tissue. These assays could detect endogenous murine leukemia virus DNA in mouse DNA, indicating that the CWR22 tumor contained neither XMRV nor related viruses. In addition, no XMRV sequences were detected when sections from the CWR22 tumor were examined by in situ hybridization. The same assay previously detected XMRV sequences in stromal cells of prostate tumors. The authors conclude that “Our findings conclusively show an absence of XMRV or related viruses in prostate of patient CWR22, thereby strongly supporting a mouse origin of XMRV.”

An important question not addressed by this study is why XMRV was originally detected in multiple prostate tumors obtained from patients at the Cleveland Clinic. The authors seem to be working on this problem, as they state that “…the sequence of XMRV present in 22Rv1 cells is virtually identical with XMRV cloned using human prostate samples, thus suggesting laboratory contamination with XMRV nucleic acid from 22Rv1 cells as the source. Further experiments designed to confirm or refute this hypothesis are currently underway.”

No biological evidence of XMRV in blood or prostatic fluid from prostate cancer patients. Samples from individuals with prostate cancer were tested for the presence of infectious XMRV and for antibodies against the virus. Neither infectious virus nor antibodies were detected in blood plasma (n = 29) or prostate secretions (n = 5). Among these were five specimens that had previously tested positive for XMRV DNA, including two from the original study. The authors conclude that the results “support the conclusion from other studies that XMRV has not entered the human population”.

Susceptibility of human lymphoid tissue cultured ex vivo to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) infection. Although XMRV is not known to cause human disease, whether it has to potential to do so is unknown. The virus can infect a variety of cultured human cells including peripheral blood mononuclear cells and neuronal cells. In this study the authors placed human tonsillar tissue in culture and infected it with XMRV. Proviral (integrated) DNA could be detected in the cells several weeks after infection and virus particles were released into the medium. However these released viruses could not infect fresh tonsillar tissue, possibly due to modification by innate antiviral restriction factors such as APOBEC, which is known to inhibit XMRV infectivity.

Based on their findings the authors conclude that “laboratories working with XMRV producing cell lines should be aware of the potential biohazard risk of working with this replication-competent retrovirus”.

It is clear that XMRV does not cause chronic fatigue syndrome; the original findings of Lombardi and colleagues linking the virus to this disease have been retracted by the journal. However there are still two papers in the literature that report the presence of XMRV in prostate – the original XMRV discovery paper and one from Ila Singh’s laboratory. In both papers XMRV detection in tissues was accomplished by using serological procedures. Based on the papers summarized here, the assays did not detect XMRV – but a satisfactory explanation for the positive signals has not yet been provided.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Good. I am a CFS patient and am glad that there is no retrovirus involved in my poor health. 

  2. I’m so pleased for all those with prostate cancer and CFS. This is great news that a retrovirus is not causing these illnesses.

  3. Hi virology blog.

    Yes great news that prostate cancer has been given the all clear for XMRV!

  4. These studies, in no way, put my mind at ease. It is a replication-competent retrovirus. Sorry, I’m not buying this and I doubt others with any intelligence would either.

  5. What would a proper clean up be? An independent investigation into the possible falsifications and fabrications of the doctors Mikovits, Ruscetti and Lombardi. But who could do that? Certainly not the the University of Nevada and certainly not the NCI.

  6. still too many unanswered questions for me so im afraid im not buying the above either .

  7. Tony, you will find that an investigation into the practices of John Coffin are required.  Specifically why his so called “consensus” XMRV virus that is  in the GenBank has no envelope gene. That cannot be related to the results any positive MRV virus study as they all have env gene’s.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/FN692043.2

    Second, why VP62 has been updated to PreXMRV-1 and gene’s for VP62 have been discontinued.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/89889045
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_007815.2

  8. Sadly the assays in these studies are not clinically validated.  They are also not the proven methods from any of the positive studies.  No scientists would for a moment feel safe concluding that the CWR22 tumor is free of an MRV virus.  Neither would they argue that this data could refute the data from the other assays.  Is that why they were published in PlosOne?

    When will a different scientist attempt a replication of the proven methods.  Fear of doing so is damaging the health of those that have been shown to be infected.

  9. Well said.  Replication o the proven methods is being avoided and every Tom Dick and Harry is taking out patents for testing people for MRVs.

  10. They have all avoided replication and arranged for Mikovits and Ruscetti, two people we know are honest decent people, to have to test samples that have been collected and processed the way the Government wants. Patients and the community want those methods laid out in full.  They want to question the labs technicians and find out what they were told to do.  You may have Dr Mikovits gagged at this time, but we are not and we will get answers.  The hard way if necessary.

  11. Thanks for the update on the current findings.  While some people will obviously never be satisfied as it wold require abandoning their a belief they hold so dear, it is nice to see science progress.

  12. Thanks for your continued interest in this subject prof. Racaniello!

    I see there are still a handful militants who just can’t give up their twisted ramblings. Oh well, I guess even a maximum dose of haloperidol isn’t going to bring them to earth.

    I noticed you mentioned that the serological signals don’t provide a satisfactoy explanation in these two PC studies. Does this also count for the serology results in ME/CFS or have they already been discounted as a fluke? I’m trying to close the XMRV book, but I’m left with this ‘cliffhanger’.

  13. Dr. R, Nothing is ever “clear” when placed in contexts such as arguing that the XMRV issue is “dead”, etc.  The blogs and articles continue to follow and air the Silverman XMRV based clone for the REAL XMRV.  Those researching the real XMRV do not mean the clone when they use the term.  Only certain persons busy “debunking” etc. use that term for the the retrovirus,.  It is the wrong name for that clone-which I recall as VP62?.  

    The causation discussed has yet to be unproven, because much work is using the clone.  I apologize for conclusory statements, however most everyone else is using them.  I do not have the present time or energy to produce the citations for you, but I have them.    A perusal of the literature finds that much excellent work is being done.  

    Dr. Mikovits should still be congratulated on finding this retrovirus-she found the actual one with others collaborators, who used the samples correctly and the re-agents correctly, etc.  

    The Silverman mistake allowed the usual person who loves to do 180’s and make much hoo-hah airspace out of it (although he was one of the reviewers)-finding the clone issue in Silverman’s work.  Coffin and those have never stated nor proven that Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti’s worked with Silverman’s clone rather than the real XMRV.  Coffin has attempted to tar everyone with Silverman’s clone, but not prove others had Silverman’s clone in their work.  In fact, Singh and others continually worked with the Ruscetti/Mikovits samples but continued instead to make their controls and work dependent upon Silverman’s clone work-read it. .  However, no one has truly disproved Dr. Mikovits and Ruscetti’s main work, and the good work everyone else did that they were not permitted to discuss in their letters, when Alberts’ made decision (despite the deadline he had given the collaborators) to yank the article on XMRV.  Science yanked the paper without printing the letter Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti (very timely)wrote explaining why they and others stood by their work.  Why? Maybe the letter they wrote was too “spot on”.  Why did he not permit it?  After all, as far as the original paper-he is one of the ones who edited it, which created problems that even Dr. Mikovits follow up article (also edited by Alberts) couldn’t completely cure without the entirety of the original paper being published.  Failing to publish that letter-which was submitted very timely, deprives the scientific community of that information to compare and contrast and incorporate into their own thinking about these issue.  Alberts was rewarded for his actions (see, now he is on board that decides who gets grant monies-wow. And guess what-a measly 6 million for largely inconsequential ME/CFS studies – no increases, and never full restitution of the $6 M (See Hillary Johnson’s Occums Razor) misused by the former CDC director of CFS studies, Reeves).  Yanking of the Lombardi paper (Lombardi had long abandoned his post-doc before the paper was published and did very little on it, however, institutional politics prevailed-another unseemly side of science and money politics) paper claiming everyone “took too long” to provide their letters about retracting the paper-was not good judgement, rather it spoke volumes as to internal politics of the NIH and other agencies and the full participation and complicity of Alberts in the politics.  Alberts could have printed the letter-he had plenty of time.  I can send it to you if you like.  There happen to be tissues that excrete the real XMRV retrovirus, kept in secure isolation, that have never been exposed to contamination,marrow, adenovirus infected lung, breast cancer tissue and more.  There is great fear and earned paranoia that these samples will suddenly disappear.  Trust around the agencies is not high because of the agendas and fights between egos.  Dr. Racaniello, if you would contact and speak fairly and openly with these individuals-and you know who they are-you will have insight into the evolving framework of these issues.   
    Let us not lose sight of the very real underlying disease and immune deficiencies of the people who are victims of “viral syndrome”, GWI, ME/CFS, and others losing their lives, families, support and ability to regain the productivity and creativity they once gave to our country and economy.  I know too many inventors,scientists, and doctors who are left in pain and untreated, who were among the best in their fields.  Their conditions reveal  biochemical (as well as clinically validated proof of very real symptoms) aspects of disease processes and immune abnormalities.  Victims/Patients do not want to be this way.  Despite the attempts to adopt  the UK’s barbaric use of psychiatry here in the U.S.(psychiatrists suddenly forget their medical education and the facts that there are biochemical problems in disease to be solved and treated-same as with real psychiatric conditions) (also see Harvard’s web site) as a weapon to blow off the millions affected, the reality remains-this is a severe illness.  There a strain of something that makes ME/CFS the consequence that has an infectious component during the infection. 

     “Viral Syndrome” is a real illness of the immune system run off its tracks and ability to function-no person would choose this disease. noted physicians state if they had to choose for themselves they would rather have AIDS, which can be treated-but look, ME/CFS can be treated, and with palliative care added, patients can often increase their ADL.  Surprisingly, Viread is helpful.  Maybe it grabs receptors of the many opportunistic  viruses these people have and helps clear them.  It is used safely in infants and as a protective and prophylactic tool by partners of HIV  patients-it works, is safe and well tolerated.  (Apparently healthy partners and even infants can have Viread, just not people with ME/CFS-odd capricious and arbitrary double standard despite the facts are showing the treatment works wonderfully).So, to return to debating and discussing XMRV-We know a lot more  about how XMRV is incorporated into the genome,and how it  uses the very same places to incorporate, is known to take passages through generations before something causes it to start expressing-similar to cancers-something triggers it. We know more about how it is expressed, and slowly replicates.  Many excellent papers continue exploring this retrovirus-just check.  Excellent work.  We do know it attacks the B cells in a different manner than HIV- it takes very little to open the immune system to the incredible number of opportunistic infections it normally keeps at bay.  Further, we have learned that XMRV-and other viruses, etc.- CAN and does- infect cell lines- (and Silverman has suffered no ill effects on his research which was all using his clone-yet, the part of the clone that he used to examine interactions is the real XMRV-tied up with a clone to hold it so it can be closely studied and more easily used in experiments.).  The portion of the Silverman clone, the retroviral particles,  in fact produce infection-see the studies in rats and macaques.  Look at West Nile-it hides deep in the brain after it has a window of time that it can be pulled from the blood stream-and sheds periodically from its hidie-hole spots lying deep within the brain-the nervous tissue it seeks when entering the body.  WNV  is well known as a  relapsing and reactivating illness-I can give you an earful about that virus and the encephalitic consequences, as I suffer from it, with bouts of its poliomyelitis aspects.  I helped treat 80 patients with it, and also aided an Alferon-N Injection study that was not finished due to the death of Dr. Rahal and the reneging of a team of ID physicians who promised to take the remaining 13 patients required to finish the study.  Another day-but Alferon-N brings these patients back from the edge of the grave-I personally witnessed this.   WNV too opens the back to to the immune system for many opportunistic viruses and infections-I have 36  counting.  We still have a tremendous problem, as ultimately the Coffin/Fauci/Levy and Alberts group while hawking their claim every is contaminated?  This whole exercise in “debunking” has yet- in spite of hoping to bury the ME/CFS disease- managed to point others to look at the blood supply and the contamination of cell lines used in vaccines and other work-with other contaminates.  Please do not throw out the entire baby with the bathwater.  EBV and HHV-6 are acquired and often reactivated later in  life and we know for a fact untreated EBV will lead to severe cancers within 20 years.  Yet, physicians rarely treat people with fulminating EBV-in mono infections they may do intravenous Acyclovir-however, Acyclovir orally doesn’t do the same job as its intravenous form, because the oral doesn’t get into the cells as well from the gut as the directly from the blood.  Please see Dr. Montoya’s work.  (I may send you some excellent papers that do examine the XMRV-the real one, not what Dr. Silverman deemed the real one-and it is fascinating.  Invite me and we will talk).
    This is not over-there is more to see and learn.  And ME/CFS -I know you can and probably do you understand- can be found to have enough cytokine inflammatory signatures and steady (with minor variances of course) demonstrations of of low natural killer cell populations with reduced ability to function-Dr. R, there remains much to learn about this very real disease-not syndrome, disease-because of the Non-HIV AIDS like character of it and the characteristics it shares that overlap on the continuum with EBV infections to MMS and GWI or GWS. 

    I hope will your column will not continue to focus on Coffin’s continuous self-serving chorus about how contamination happened-it happens often in other labs, and in his too-it is a problem everywhere that has caused huge problems for all of the population.  The problem is much bigger than debunking  these scientists pet misdirection from the bigger issues.  I hope you explore the larger issue and are not afraid of the political gamesmanship rife throughout too much of Federal grants and congressional earmarked support.And, I can say that HHS/NIH is looking into the diversion of federal monies by the institutions that mismanaged results, attempted to push false results and then fired the lone scientist who refused to lie, and fraud and misdirection of job duties causing loss of monies and grans for poorly constructed studies within NIH.  Notice how there is  lots of money for obesity, diabetes, cancer-but not an infectious form of ME/CFS and GWD/GWI and also a larger population wise of deaths and lifelong illness from mosquito transmitted diseases which are rampant yet not reported by the CDC-despite the labs that do report.  How poorly protected the US is now that mosquito borne encephalides are worse than than at the time of writing our Constitution in Philadelphia.  We have Malaria too, where I live, and only three abatement districts in my state. Scary.  I have the stats and the labs and doctors are shocked how the health department here (which lost their CDC funding for failing to the job right with WNV) “disappears” their mandated reports of cases.  Happens with the mumps and pertussis cases-under reported to the CDC. Yes, we have a citizens group working on, trying to “fight city hall” on the state and federal level.  With over 100 Inspector General Offices unfilled by our great administration in the White House, it is a hard fight.As far as the “fabrication” mentioned in the comments below-the WPI suit against Dr. Mikovits is about an attempt to cover up WPI’s fabrication and sabotaging of alleged XMRV tests-which were no validated now even done correctly by the post doc who kept receiving NIH/NIAID funds for his salary while he “took over” the for profit “reference lab”-there is much to come on all these fronts, and it is all tragic.  Dr. Racaniello? please move on from the “XMRV is dead” reruns and move into your real expertise-stick your neck out here.  There is so much going on, and it will come out.  Already, there is so much fascinating scientific analysis-new and old, well founded that is from the solid base biochemists and others have built upon for over thirty years.  You have much more to give to the public than supporting those trying to pile on and bury the careers of scientists fighting against incredible manipulations and misuse, sabotaging of scientific federally funded grants.  Maybe those making the most noise are trying to avoid a close look at their own mistakes, I do not know.  However, at this point, while others may be urging you to beat on the XMRV stories, there is much more to work on with your great talents.  Can we get back to the other aspects of this disease?  By the way, of note:  Abbott patented (another interesting thing-it is already pateneted elsewhere) an array that sorts out cross-reactivity of the real XMRV and the various cones.  Very nice instrument.Maybe we can talk instead about the amount of fraud in science these days.  Or fraud and misuse of funds in Federal grant monies used for scientific projects.  Or other discoveries and issues in the immune system and RNase-l which happens to be the fork in the Krebs cycle that determines what goes on to be ATP and therefore part of the signaling etc of the immune system.  That fork dysfunction also shows up in ME/CFS victims-which is why the profound “fatigue” occurs that makes it impossible for many muscles-at times even their heart-to not function.How about giving the XMRV issue a rest until something more comes out of it, if anything? Dr. R, your column is to educate us about science and virology.  Let us get back to doing that.  Sure, my “rant” (editorializing) isn’t the most on-point thing, being disabled, I am just doing the best I can to point out what I know.  I look forward to other discussions.     

  14. Thank you for your clear and consise summaries.  It’s nice to see how a scientist like Dr. Silverman works, going back to check the original tissues, trying to answer the unsolved questions.  This seems like how good science is supposed to work. And I’m glad they got the funding to do the research, even though it wasn’t likely to lead to a breakthrough discovery.

  15. Tony,  I would like to see this. Some of the” xmrv is the only answer” club are already setting up reasons to discredit  Lipkins study. Let’s stop wasting money. The money could be better spent on other causes such as why CFS/ME patients get viruses that others don’t?

  16. Dr.  Racaniello, thank you for such a great blog. I have learned so much valuable information.  
     
    A couple of questions if you or someone else could explain or point me to a source.
     
    1. Has Ila Singh made a comment about these studies?  I admire her work.
     
     2.Were the negative samples from the original paper cultured?
     
    Lucy
     
     

  17. Being disabled with me/cfs I couldn’t disagree with you more. This “rant” you have posted is way too long for patients to read. These are the same arguments from several years back and they have been discredited. Do you think by repeating these “theories” enough, some will stick?  What if Dr. Mikovitz declares xmrv to be contamination and to move on? Would you?
    Lucy

  18. The post above is a reply to Eigerwand but it does not show up as a reply to his/her post.

  19. You claim some are not satisfied. How is failure to use clinically validated assays and failure to attempt replication satisfactory to the benefit of science.  Try giving specifics on the details rather than resorting to emotional explanations to fill in your inability to discuss the points.

  20. What virus are you suggesting ME patients, oh sorry you said fatigue, fatigue patients get that ordinary people don’t?  Those viruses are a dead end.  They cannot cause the disease ME. They were researched for over 30 years and nothing was found.  The NIH study (why call it Lipkin) is a Governement arranged definitive study. Every decent scientists knows that when you make a claim like that it is to stop research going forward.  So who has advised the lab techs and what information did they leave out?

  21. But he did not check those samples with the assays from his positive papers. Instead he used new assays that are not clinically validated.  His assays do not work. 

  22. How were those arguments discredited? The sequences from Ruscetti and Mikovits have only ever been polytropic.  Look at the Lombardi paper, it is confirmed in there.

    XMRV is the name given to a contamant.  That is VP62 that Silverman accidentally made from 3 sources. Was one of the PreXMRV-1?  The MRVs in prostate cancer patients and ME patients are not that MLV-related virus.

    Dr Racanileeo has not said those MRVs are contamination. 

  23. “Dr. Mikovits should still be congratulated on finding this retrovirus-she found the actual one with others collaborators, who used the samples correctly and the re-agents correctly, etc.”
    How about that?
    “The CDC should still be congratulated on finding the psychological causes of CFS in the mid eighties-they found the actual causes with their collaborators, who tested the patients correctly and the hypothesis correctly, etc.”

    The work of Dr. Mikovits is as shady as the work of the CDC when it comes to CFS. Why are you defending it as if it brought you something? Dr. Mikovits and her collaborators Dr. Ruscetti and Dr. Lombardi most likely falsified the work connecting CFS to XMRV. Look at the table 4 in den Addendum (without the participation of Dr. Lombardi!), it does not match the statements made by Dr. Mikovits – this data is most likely falsified.

    http://parakoch.blogspot.de/2012/01/does-table-number-4-lie.html

    In addition, “Eigerwand”, I say you act as a sockpuppet of Gerwyn/V99.

  24. Vincent Racaniello is ME sexually transmitted?

    Vincent Racaniello should ME patients use condoms to protect their sexual partners against ME?

    Vincent Racaniello should ME patients be able to donate blood if their in a remission?

  25. SOME of you CFS/ME people are beginning to sound the like AIDS denialists flocking to dispute the science.  It doesn’t matter how many science papers confirm that XMRV does not cause disease in humans, you just keep repeating the same lame arguments. Are we suppose to believe that any of you know more than these PhD researchers? Or that researchers don’t want to find answers because they have something against this illness?
    The militant approach some of you demonstrate will not endear anyone to your cause and I doubt it will encourage many scientist to jump into CFS/ME research when there is so much patient drama surrounding this illness. That XMRV has been disproved is a GOOD thing! Who wants to be chronically infected with a retrovirus?

  26. Why haven’t Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti published their own letters, if they are so “spot on.” Nobody is stopping them from making their letters public and I’m sure there are a number of journalist who would be happy to publish them.

    Hmm!

  27. There are many replication-competent retroviruses or else they wouldn’t exist. That does NOT mean they cause disease in humans!  

  29. Lucy,

    Maybe if you were disabled with ME after one of the epidemics then you would feel differently?

    I examine the experience and not the emotion. MLV’s still need investigation to see if they are implicated in ME.  The best person to head this research is Dr Mikovits.

  30. Maybe Guest, you should consider the feelings of the epidemic ME patients. None of us want to have a retrovirus but we need to know what is causing our ill health. Until you have had your own blood tested for reverse transcription (and no one is offering you this) then you simply do not know what infections you have.

  31. CFS and ME patients want to see science progress and not receive the glib assurances that they have until now. So many errors in the non – XMRV finding papers mean that patients can not take them seriously. We deserve better than that.

    It’s not a “belief”, it’s a hypothesis that has not been fully examined.

  32. The original HIV/AIDS patients certainly didn’t want to be infected by a retrovirus but they had honest and commited and in the end competent researchers spending time and money to find the cause.

    Since when was scientific curiosity based on how politely patients lived and died?

    It doesn’t reflect well on you to blame patients who have waited 10, 20, 30 or more years for research into treatments to even start. They deserve the same honesty and committment from researchers and the same money allocated.

    Some HIV/AIDS patients fought tooth and nail against the retrovirus news. They also fought against the idea that their ilness was caused by poppers or diet or stress. There were some stupid ideas at the time.

    Reseachers didn’t run away like cowards.

    ME and CFS patients deserve no less than that.

  33. No one has tested ME and CFS patients blood for even the signs of a new or undiscovered retrovirus do we don’t know if there is any retroviral involvement. Too soon to celebrate and anyway we remain seriously ill and that’s not a cause for celebration.

    So many retrovirologists with money to spend on disproving XMRV as a cause (and many patients would feel doing this badly)

    but

    not one examining patients blood for sign of other retroviral activity markers as part of that study  or a new one -   why?

  34. Probably because they only got funding to look for XMRV. At this point there is no reason to look for retroviral markers, so no agency is going to fund that research.

    We can only hope that Huber’s findings of HERV-K18 activation hold up in her bigger study. XMRV’s funeral is long gone.

  35. Just to distinguish between “you CFS/ME people”…I am living with CFS and have a Ph.D. in molecular biology. Indeed, I find it gratifying to watch the process of science progress as its history defines it. As an educator, many of the comments in reply to this blog surely embolden my efforts to help middle and high school students learn to distinguish science from such thinking  we refer to as pseudoscience, nonscience, wishful thinking, and/or paranoia. Ignorance is not bliss.

  37. That’s just plain disingenuous Sam. You know that there is legal action going on.

    That’s just plain disingenuous Sam. You know that there is legal action going on.

     
    We need Dr Mikovits and Dr Ruscetti in a much more important place than that.

    We need them investigating retrovirus activity in ME patients so that the

    outstanding questions from XMRV are followed up.

  38. RA,

    does it not strike you are odd that so much funding became available for disproving XMRV and it didn’t filter over to basic RV research in CFS.

    It does to me.

    We as a society need scientific funding spent in a way to answer the big questions.

    If HIV scientists has acted in the same way we still wouldn’t know what caused AIDS.

    There needs to be an accounting on monies spent.

  39. I’d like to also see your students read “and the band played on” about the HIV/AIDS story and “Osler’s Web” to read about CFS.

    Young scientists would also benefit from learning about how politics can interfere with the scientific process and how individual egos can determine what is researched and what isn’t.

    They may help to round off their education and return better science.

  40. It’s very sad to see someone who hides behind their initials on a blog describing genuine patient concerns as the “handful of militants who can’t give up their twisted rambling”.

    This is nothing more than “hate speak” and does nothing to help a group of very ill and disabled people. It doesn’t help the scientific people who are trying to help us either.

    It makes the “other side” of this arguement look bigoted, unreasonable  and abusive.

  41. My understanding is that the NIH study is going to collect samples from well characterised patients with CFS and from controls for deep sequencing, which should find any virus that is present and give a much more comprehensive investigation than anything else so far. The cohort will be followed and samples banked so precisely this kind of research can be done. There’s no reason to think a retrovirus is any more or less likely than any other virus – to think that the finding of a false positive like XMRV makes another retrovirus more likely is incorrect.

  42. This is correct. I am part of this study. My samples were collected at my doctor’s office. The study is NIH funded. The planned research is more extensive than what you described. I gave six different samples/body fluids. There are several doctors participating. I had to fill out an extennsive questionaire in order to be admitted to the study. I’m a long-term patient.

  43. I should say it is at least partly NIH funded. There is some private funding as well, I think. I don’t know the funding details.

  46. The belief that all biological products that have been in use for decades have not been distributing previously undetectable infectious retroviruses?

  47. Ha! Disingenuous? Tell that to poster Eigerwand. He’s the one who wrote:

     “Science yanked the paper without printing the letter Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti (very timely)wrote explaining why they and others stood by their work.  Why? Maybe the letter they wrote was too “spot on”.  Why did he not permit it?”

    This is about Science retracting the Lombardi et al paper and has nothing to do with Mikovits’ legal problems! 

    Hopefully the Lipkin study will answer your questions…

  48. Identification of a novel retrovirus in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

    http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20120503ptan20120107338.php

    ‘The BPH viruses disclosed herein are related to previously identified gammaretroviruses such as murine leukemia virus and xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), but are distinct from these viruses based on nucleic acid and amino acid sequences.’

  49. You think?  This is what happened to me. I don’t consider Mikovits, a scientiest with integrity. Okay, let the conspiracy theories begin.

  50. What I find really interesting is that nobody has really read the work by Dr. Mikovits – not her critics and neither her defenders.

    Nobody has talked about Table 4, except that it only contains 93 of the 101 patients.But there is so much more in this table:http://parakoch.blogspot.com/2012/02/request-for-clarification-regarding-33.html

    One needs just to look at table 4 – and apparently, nobody has done that.

    Both those criticizing and those defending her should take some time and read table 4 and try to match it other statements made by Dr. Mikovits.