Author Topic: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback  (Read 960 times)

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« on: October 06, 2011, 11:02:29 AM »
Judy Mikovits did not discover human gamma retroviruses (HGRV) alone, and the accomplishments of those who collaborated with her lend credence and integrity to her research.

The discovery of contamination in the VP62 clone and a mistake with a presentation slide are not justification for discounting the knowledge and experience of all those who collaborated in the discovery of HGRV in patients with ME.

Since I am limited in space, I can only describe a few:

Dr. Frank A. Ruscetti is known as the father of retroviruses. (Wikipedia) He was one of the team who first isolated HTLV in Robert Gallo’s lab. He also discovered the interleukin 2 cytokine.

Dr. Sandra Ruscetti began her work at NCI on the pathogenesis of mouse retroviruses (gamma retroviruses) in 1975.

She has been studying retroviruses that cause leukemia or neurological disease in rodents to obtain information on how molecular changes in normal cells can result in pathological consequences.

Shyh-Ching Lo and Harvey J. Alter in their 2010 paper entitled “Detection of MLV-related Virus Gene Sequences in Blood of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Healthy Blood Donors” stated:
 
"Although we find evidence of a broader group of MLV-related viruses, rather than just XMRV, in patients with CFS and healthy blood donors, our results clearly support the central argument by Lombardi et al. that MLV-related viruses are associated with CFS and are present in some blood donors."

Harvey J. Alter is an NIH virologist who is best best known for his work that led to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus.

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal and the 2000 Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research.

Shyh-Ching Lo is the Director of the Tissue Safety Laboratory Program Division of Cellular and Gene Therapy Research at the FDA.

Dr. Judy Mikovits worked for Frank Ruscetti at the National Cancer Institute in Maryland during the 1980s, completed a joint PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and specialized in virus-caused cancers.  For over 22 years at the National Cancer Institute, she investigated how viruses dysregulate the immune response to cause cancer.

She became interested in the Whittemore-Peterson research institute when she attended the HHV-6 Virus Conference in 2006.

At that conference, Dr. Dan Peterson reported that nine of his CFS patients had the rare cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL). Even more striking, some of them had the specific type of lymphoma called Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) that is even more rare.  It strikes 1 out of every 100,000 people.

Dr. Mikovits went to the Whittemore-Peterson Institute to look more closely at these patients.

Mikovits was joined by some of the most prominent researchers from the National Cancer Institute. This led to the research paper:
   
Identification of Differentially Expressed Viruses in American CFS Patients Probed with a Custom Mammalian Virus Microarray. Judy Mikovits, V. Lombardi, Y. Huang, D. Peterson and F. Ruscetti.

Mikovits and collaborators used the latest technology for identifying viruses – microarrays -- which search for bits of RNA and DNA unique to a pathogen. This particular microarray looked for evidence of all known mammalian viruses, and it held multiple aspects of every known mammalian virus.

What they found was:

“The average chronic fatigue syndrome patient on the day they were tested had between 30-50 viruses; the average healthy control patient had 3 or 4” -- Dr. Daniel Peterson, 2008 Swedish Conference. On the other hand, the healthy controls had 3 or 4 common cold viruses (rhinoviruses/adenoviruses).

Mikovitz and collaborators next looked for evidence that these patient’s immune systems had viral induced immune dysfunction. This led to the research paper:

Serum Cytokine and Chemokine Profiles of Individuals with ME/CFS Distinguish Unique Subgroups Among Patient Populations. Vincent Lombardi, D. Redelman, D. White, M. Fremont, K. DeMeirleir, D. Peterson, J. Mikovits

They did the cytokine signature of these patients and it matched the viruses they had found.

Further research into viruses in patients with ME/CFS led to the discovery of human gamma retroviruses (improperly named XMRV) and publication in Science in Oct. 2009 of the paper :

Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Vincent C. Lombardi, Francis W. Ruscetti, Jaydip Das Gupta, Max A. Pfost, Kathryn S. Hagen, Daniel L. Peterson, Sandra K. Ruscetti, Rachel K. Bagni, Cari Petrow-Sadowski, Bert Gold, Michael Dean, Robert H. Silverman and Judy A. Mikovits

« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 05:03:03 PM by Rain »

currer

  • Guest
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2011, 11:28:08 AM »
Sounds fine to me,  rain

jace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4090
  • Jane Clout
    • peoplewithME
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2011, 11:52:32 AM »
I often have to try two or three times to get a comment to register on treatingxmrv.blogspot.  Always copy the comment into your clipboard in case it gets lost, and try again, if I were you Rain.  And you could post your very pertinent points elsewhere too.

Do try.  Let me know if you want help.
IinME  All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. MEactionUK

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2011, 11:56:44 AM »
Thanks currer and jace.  ;D

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2011, 01:51:16 PM »
I posted it on Phoenix Rising.

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2011, 03:17:14 PM »
They actually found HGRVs, not VP62.  Those HGRVs are known to be part polytropic, but until the rest of the sequencing is done we don't know what viruses they are.  Are they like VP62 polytropic and xenotropic, are they only polytropic.  Loads of options.  But they found many types.

Lo also found polytropic and modified polytropic sequences, but the WPI were reporting earlier than this to have also found those types, when they thought their main finding was VP62. 

VP62 is one strain of XMRV.  It is not other XMRVs.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 04:55:24 PM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2011, 03:35:22 PM »
V99,

Do you think I should add your comments to my post (posted on Phoenix Rising as vdt33)?

Rain

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2011, 04:57:31 PM »
Yes, you can, but add that VP62 does not exist in nature as Silverman made it in 2006 and that the immune response they detected could identify multiple HGRVs, but no endogenous human or mouse viruses. 
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

B8b_E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3239
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2011, 05:40:13 PM »
Yes, you can, but add that VP62 does not exist in nature as Silverman made it in 2006 and that the immune response they detected could identify multiple HGRVs, but no endogenous human or mouse viruses.

They as in Silverman or Alter/Lo?

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2011, 06:01:48 PM »
V, I agree with what you are saying, but I don't remember the statements or research papers that document that.

I need to cite evidence. I guess it is in the retraction but was it written or verbal or a published paper. One or more sources. Can you cite some URL's that I can reference?

Thanks,

Rain

JT1024

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2011, 06:41:42 PM »
This is from Gerwyn:

Cort Johnson is so ignorant that he still does not understand that the gammaretroviruses discovered in the blood of people with ME had nothing to do with the sequence which supposedly originated in patient VP-62 but did not.

VP-62 was a synthetic construct derived from three separate sources exactly like coffins prexmrv-1. Neither sequence represents a naturally occurring virus. Hence every paper which used a PCR optimised to detect a free floating VP-62 sequence used an assay incapable of detecting the viruses detected in the blood of people with ME.  This renders all the 00 studies meaningless and they should be retracted on the grounds that no assay should be used without its clinical sensitivity being established

We now also have the situation where Coffin and Pathak now claim that a provirus which does exist in nature formed a proviral sequence which does not exist in nature by multiple recombinations with another proviral sequence which does not exist in nature

Now that would be magic!

Permission to repost

Now this is a magic trick:

Take some tumour cells from a person with prostate cancer look for a virus in those cells using PCR -  nothing found.

Take cells and insert into a hypothetical mouse.

Take cells out of mouse and look again using PCR  - virus found

The virus came from the mouse didn't it? Obvious.

Obvious that is until you realise they are different PCRs with different sensitivities and the first PCR could barely detect the virus at the massive concentrations that occur in the 22rv1 cell line and the second PCR is a reverse transcriptase PCR not mentioned in the paper.

Pathak and Coffin the wizards of spin. Are we looking at fraud as well?

Hopefully the editors of Science will take a keen interest in this mistake especially as it invalidates the entire paper!

Permission to repost granted
First they Ignore you , then they Laugh at you , then they Attack you , then you WIN!!!

Mahatma Gandhi

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2011, 07:13:51 PM »
V, I agree with what you are saying, but I don't remember the statements or research papers that document that.

I need to cite evidence. I guess it is in the retraction but was it written or verbal or a published paper. One or more sources. Can you cite some URL's that I can reference?

Thanks,

Rain

Which bit?
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2011, 10:06:27 PM »
V99,

I would like to read the full text of the Partial Retraction published in the Letters of Science to see if there is any information in there I could quote to document the VP62 debacle.

I don't suppose we have that?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1212182   

Rain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2011, 01:58:45 PM »

Thanks JT1024, Gerwyn and V99. I understand what you are saying, but I need to cite a published source (quote from "Partial Retraction" or a statement from Judy or Silverman, etc.

Nobody outside our Forum or who doesn't already know this about VP62 already is going to believe anything I say without some documentation.

Welcome back Gerwyn!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D

BreatheEasy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Comment Defending HGRV Research - Need Feedback
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2011, 08:47:33 PM »
Excellent, rain,
Please post this in as many spots as possible. Maybe send it to Mindy and
JDJ by email as well.