Saturday, March 19, 2011
Patients only want the truth, but the same can't be said about the CDC and CBT psychiatrists
Louise Cox wrote:
The original paper, Lombardi et al, has been validated by Lo et al. XMRV is a xenotropic/polytropic hybrid. They found the same virus. Still no study has attempted to replicate Lombardi et al. What are they afraid they will find if they do? More positive studies?
The original paper used four methods for detecting XMRV in ME patients, here they are in descending order of sensitivity:
1)Nested PCR for gag sequences from LNCaP cells that have been co-cultured with subject’s plasma or activated PBMCs
2)Presence of antibodies to XMRV Env in subject’s plasma
3)Presence of gag products by nested PCR on stimulated PBMCs or detection of viral proteins expressed by activated PBMCs with appropriate antisera.
4)Nested RT-PCR of plasma nucleic acid or PCR from cDNA from unactivated PBMCs
None of the negative studies have attempted to replicate even one of those methods.
The negative studies have also used a clone of XMRV (VP62) to calibrate their test to. This has limited the diversity of detectable virus to the range represented by the clone. If this had been the approach to HIV, where would we be today? They would have dismissed that virus. It is unhelpful for scientists to be claiming that different, unproven tests, are capable of detecting a positive, when they have no evidence to prove that they can. It is well known that even now HIV tests can miss the diversity that is currently in the human population. Here is one example: "Inaccurate Diagnosis of HIV-1 Group M and O Is a Key Challenge for Ongoing Universal Access to Antiretroviral Treatment and HIV Prevention in Cameroon" (2009)
It is also incorrect to claim that only patients want to see this research conducted as it should be. There is a growing list of scientists who are also finding the virus in those with ME. This list also include the co-discoverer of the first known human retrovirus, and the co-discover of Hepatitis C.
Pretending any differently is propaganda. It is also incorrect to claim that patients are looking for a particular result, again this is propaganda.
They only want the truth, and only further robust research will uncover that truth. Why would any Government at this time slow the speed at which this research is conducted, when the implications are potentially catastrophic for the human population?