Second XMRV Study In UK Reveals Negative Results

The CFIDS Association has reported that a second UK XMRV study, recently published in Retrovirology, has come up showing negative results.  As we all know, the UK has a really negative attitude towards anything related to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  From the emails and other information I get from UK CFS patients, it’s like talking to people who are where we were 20 years ago with CFS research and information. 

As you all know, I am not a doctor and I don’t try to pretend that I understand all of the information on these XMRV studies, so I will include an excerpt from Suzanne Vernon of the CFIDS Association and her thoughts on this latest study.  You can read all of the information on the study at the Retrovirology link I provided above and you can read Suzanne Vernon’s comments and response to this study at this link: Second XMRV Negative Study …Still In Search of a Proper and Robust Replication Study.

Until methods are standardized and the scientific community is provided information about the specific characteristics of the CFS subjects (and controls) who tested positive in the Science paper, be prepared to read more negative studies. Hopefully the Science investigators will make this information available before interest in XMRV being associated with CFS fades and becomes yet another foiled attempt at solving CFS. Achieving scientific consensus on the role of XMRV in CFS certainly warrants more research and greater collaboration, as do so many other important discoveries being made.

If you liked this article, please share.
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on StumbleUpon0Email this to someone

Comments

  1. http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/magical-medicine.htm is full of information you should be aware of before giving too much credence to any CFS research coming out of UK. There is a political agenda in UK to have CFS seen as a purely mental illness and the first UK study was designed to FAIL to find XMRV. One of its ‘researchers’ was Simon Wessely who has essentially declared war on patients with CFS. His apparent motivation is that he is paid by and on the boards of disability insurance companies, US and UK, and the boards of drug companies selling antidepressants. Patients with organic illness were excluded from this ‘study’.

    The second study from UK proceeded as if they were looking for HIV, a retrovirus that replicates rapidly and can easily be found. They didn’t pay attention to the fact that the WPI researchers found that XMRV replicates very slowly and needs a much longer incubation period before it is numerous enough to be detected by the method used in this study. Sort of like setting a fresh egg under a hen and waiting for one day, cracking it open, not finding a baby chick and then saying hen eggs do not develop into baby chicks.

    see WPIs response here: http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/news_current.html

    in part: ” 7. Perhaps the most important issue to focus on is the low level of XMRV in the blood. XMRV is present in such a small percentage of white blood cells that it is highly unlikely that either UK study’s PCR method could detect it using the methods described. Careful reading of the Science paper shows that increasing the amount of the virus by growing the white blood cells is usually required rather than using white blood cells directly purified from the body. When using PCR alone, the Science authors found that four samples needed to be taken at different times from the same patient in order for XMRV to be detected by PCR in freshly isolated white blood cells. More importantly, detection methods other than PCR showed that patients whose blood lacks sufficient amount of XMRV detectable by PCR are actually infected. This was proven by the isolation of viral proteins and the finding of infectious XMRV isolated from the indicator cell line LNCaP. The authors of the Retrovirology paper admit that their neutralization assay did not detect bacterially expressed XMRV gag and that positive control sera was needed to validate their assay. The WPI’s monoclonal antibodies specifically and sensitively completed the immune response demonstrating the assays sensitivity and specificity for XMRV envelope.

    Simply stated the only validated reliable methods for detecting XMRV in CFS patients, to date, are the methods described in Science. Failure to use these methods and validated reagents has resulted in the failure to detect XMRV. A failure to detect XMRV is not the same as absence of this virus in patients with CFS.”

    There are a lot of studies in process, scientists working without rushing to prove a pre-conceived idea. So let’s hear from them before we decide who is doing good science and who isn’t.

  2. Are you not actually accepting comments?

  3. A failure to detect XMRV is not the same as absence of this virus in patients with CFS.

    http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/news_current.html

    “7. Perhaps the most important issue to focus on is the low level of XMRV in the blood. XMRV is present in such a small percentage of white blood cells that it is highly unlikely that either UK study’s PCR method could detect it using the methods described. Careful reading of the Science paper shows that increasing the amount of the virus by growing the white blood cells is usually required rather than using white blood cells directly purified from the body. When using PCR alone, the Science authors found that four samples needed to be taken at different times from the same patient in order for XMRV to be detected by PCR in freshly isolated white blood cells. More importantly, detection methods other than PCR showed that patients whose blood lacks sufficient amount of XMRV detectable by PCR are actually infected. This was proven by the isolation of viral proteins and the finding of infectious XMRV isolated from the indicator cell line LNCaP. The authors of the Retrovirology paper admit that their neutralization assay did not detect bacterially expressed XMRV gag and that positive control sera was needed to validate their assay. The WPI’s monoclonal antibodies specifically and sensitively completed the immune response demonstrating the assays sensitivity and specificity for XMRV envelope.

    Simply stated the only validated reliable methods for detecting XMRV in CFS patients, to date, are the methods described in Science. Failure to use these methods and validated reagents has resulted in the failure to detect XMRV. A failure to detect XMRV is not the same as absence of this virus in patients with CFS.”

  4. A failure to detect XMRV is not the same as absence of this virus in patients with CFS.

    “7. Perhaps the most important issue to focus on is the low level of XMRV in the blood. XMRV is present in such a small percentage of white blood cells that it is highly unlikely that either UK study’s PCR method could detect it using the methods described. Careful reading of the Science paper shows that increasing the amount of the virus by growing the white blood cells is usually required rather than using white blood cells directly purified from the body. When using PCR alone, the Science authors found that four samples needed to be taken at different times from the same patient in order for XMRV to be detected by PCR in freshly isolated white blood cells. More importantly, detection methods other than PCR showed that patients whose blood lacks sufficient amount of XMRV detectable by PCR are actually infected. This was proven by the isolation of viral proteins and the finding of infectious XMRV isolated from the indicator cell line LNCaP. The authors of the Retrovirology paper admit that their neutralization assay did not detect bacterially expressed XMRV gag and that positive control sera was needed to validate their assay. The WPI’s monoclonal antibodies specifically and sensitively completed the immune response demonstrating the assays sensitivity and specificity for XMRV envelope.

    Simply stated the only validated reliable methods for detecting XMRV in CFS patients, to date, are the methods described in Science. Failure to use these methods and validated reagents has resulted in the failure to detect XMRV. A failure to detect XMRV is not the same as absence of this virus in patients with CFS.”

  5. I see – no comments with links to other information. OK.

    Google this for more information on why any “research” coming out of UK should be discounted.

    Magical Medicine: how to make a disease disappear, by Professor Malcolm Hooper. He details how the psychiatric industry in UK has control of ‘research’, public education and treatment of ME/CFS, and their decades long attempt to have all evidence of organic illness disappeared or discounted.

    • The links are in the post – they are in blue. It shows in blue on my screen anyway. Click on Retrovirology and then click on the link that says, “you can read Suzanne Vernon’s comments and response to this study at this link: Second XMRV Negative Study …Still In Search of a Proper and Robust Replication Study.

Join the Discussion.

We'd love to hear from you - leave a comment below

*