Re: New Study disputing XMRV

[Guest guest]

Hmmm...contamination...where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, when staph is always thrown out as contamination in people's lab results, even though there's plenty of proof that staph can take hold in numerous places in the human body and cause all kinds of damage, sickness and even death. Staph infection is a huge factor in hospital deaths. So only people in hospitals can contract staph?

First thing I'd want to know is if the CFS patients' results were skewed due to contamination, why weren't the "normals" samples contaminated? Or did those come from a different lab? That seems highly unlikely.

The new study also states that the contamination probably came from mice infected with the XMRV virus. I thought I'd read that mice carry a different strain from the new one discovered in CFS patients.

I'm a little curious about the motivation behind this study. I don't waste my time on conspiracy theories, but who would gain if doubt were cast on the validity of the XMRV discovery? CFS has always been a bit of a hot potato politically. Especially in England where coincidentally, this newest study took place.

Can't wait to see what Mikovitz says about this.

From: Windsor <rwindsor@...>Subject: Re: [infections]infections Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 1:03 PM

Dear BleuSturgeon's Law still holds, until Mikovits hands over samples and primers to an independent researcher who can and will duplicate her work exactly, the ball is still in the air.We've been through all this before well documented in "Osler's Web"RegardsR [infections]> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/me-virus-was-actually-a-lab-> mistake-study-says-2165491.html>>> ------------------------------------>>

[Guest guest]

Definitely, X is not looking fresher than the April morn. I don't think the jig

is up, though, at all. Not everything fits together - not at all; indeed I would

say it's /totally/ ugly. Needless to say, the info and argumentation in the

popular press usually does not meet a primo standard.

The differences in XMRV+ness by PCR in CFS cases vs controls, in so many

different labs, is hard to explain away. Very regular numbers - 4% in normals

and 75% in CFS, time after time. I have heard the suggestion that patient

samples - if they aren't blinded, and I don't know if they have been in the

various reports - get handled more than control samples. This is certainly a

coherent notion per se - I just don't think it is powerful enough of a mechanism

to explain the findings.

As for prostate cancer, there I really greatly doubt that all the results could

possibly be contamination. I say, no - no, awfully unlikely. From fresh

prostate, we have seqs of the provirus inside the human genome, and we have

fluoro-ISH and fluoro-immuno-histology that seem pretty good, especially the

latter. The latter two mean, respectively, sprinkling a thin slice of tissue

with glowing DNA/RNA that binds to the viral DNA/RNA, and sprinkling it with

glowing antibodies that bind ot the proteins of the virus.