Turning 'crazy' into learnin-- XMRV from contaminated vaccines?

I don't know how credible this is:

http://cfidsresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientific-consensus-is-build…

"Since the landmark study appeared in Science last month, several groups have been in a race to replicate the findings of Dr. Judy Mikovits - preliminary results are beginning to come in, while other researchers are waiting for their virus samples to arrive. There is now reasonable certainty that XMRV is the causal agent of CFS/ME, as opposed to probable grounds at the time of publication. It is hoped that by the middle of next year XMRV will beyond a reasonable doubt be shown to be the causal agent of ME/CFS."

It's second-hand preliminary results on a recently started blog... (I'm just rumour mongering really), but it sounds as if early attempts at replication are at least failing to discredit the notion of a CFS XMRV link.

ERV - dude, please lose the attitude. You'd then be somewhat more credible. Don't you see potential risks of horizontal transfers (e.g. of non-human DNA, retroviruses, and reverse transcriptases), between species, as posing risks to humans who are fully vaccinated with the pediatric and adult vaccination schedules? Don't you remember SV-40? How about Post Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) associated with Porcine Circovirus 2? How about the identification of both PCV-1 and PCV-2 in rotateq?

How safe do you think it is spray up the noses or jab live virus vaccines into our kids, e.g. flumist, MMR ?

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine_facts.shtml

Do you see any value in, at the very least, starting to rigorously screen ALL of the currently marketed vaccines for "adventitious presence" of biotech-enhanced events? Are you afraid to question "conventional wisdom"?

Cue batshit insanity from the peanut gallery in 3... 2... 1...

OK, I like peanuts, but I don't think I'm crazy... You decide.

You know, I really like this kind of argument..you can feel a big QED on the end. but...

...I can't help having the teaniest flashback to Vezzini trying to argue his way into deciding where the iocane powder is. It's probably just me though. Just a small contamination of batshit that Optimus was referring to, probably. It's OK, though. I'm coping with it just fine. I have been vaccinated twice in the last 2 weeks (seasonal flu last week, h1n1 the week before) and I'm not feeling at all fatigued, or particularly mousy :).

ERV wrote: "... I think XMRV has shit (or is one of many components, almost shit) to do with Chronic Fatigue."

Perhaps that's because to a very large extent, we still don't know/can't agree on what "Chronic Fatigue" really is (Thanks CDC and WR - you self serving A$$). I say this after having been 'diagnosed' with it in 1994. This Dx of exclusion is BS. It's another way for a physician to say "I don't know what's wrong but I do know that you are obnoxiously persistent - please just get over the loss of your health, your career and your home - can't you see that you're making me tired and uncomfortable (thinking makes me tired and not knowing makes me uncomfortable, besides I don't get reimbursed to think). We've given you a Dx so please, just go away."

I had the classic first two weeks with what appeared to be an infection, a very nasty rash, lymph nodes that were 'plum sized.' Fevers, joint pains, headaches, lots of whining, etc. The mode morphology was spot on for toxo but my serology was completely negative - 'couldn't be reconciled.' Then, for fourteen years just lots of fatigue, headaches, and just plain feeling lousy. Nothing I couldn't at least occasionally work through (Sorry Johns Hopkins, I appreciated the offer but I won't be able to complete that Ph.D.).

The last two years, things have gone from uncomfortable to more than a bit scary. A whole stack of new neural problems (CNS and Autonomic), "cardiovascular instability" - periods of bradycardia alternating with tachycardia, erratic spikes in BP (accompanied by cerebral hypo-fusion causing TIA like episodes several times some days), diabetes insipidus and secondary adrenal insufficiency apparently due to a posterior pituitary/hypothalamic cyst, and a stream of infections including recurrent SIBO, and a hospital stay this summer for septic shock."

In summary, I don't know what 'CFS' is anymore than you do but for me, this is no longer just a case of feeling tired and having a persistent headache. I feel constantly out of breath and my chest hurts every minute of the day (an under appreciatede mechanism for taking your mind off of your headache). My body now feels very unstable at times (and my vital signs would agree).

I really don't give a shit about what anyone 'thinks.' Thinking at this point is little more than just another guess. Guesses are fine but they are not science until people who don't know get off of their asses and test their hypothesis. This whole CFS thing is so polluted by 'opinion' and prejudice. I have fought being given a CFS diagnosis for 16 years for just this reason.

So does CFS as a useful entity even exist? By definition of exclusion, I'd give it a resounding 'NO.' Does XMRV explain morbidity in some ill yet previously undiagnosed portion of the population? I don't know but I think this is a good time to keep our prejudices to ourselves and our mouths shut until the work that is being done can add something of substance.

"The people who have CFS now are too old to have gotten the chicken-pox or rotavirus vaccine, so Im not looking them up."

This statement reveals this poster's total ignorance about this illness. People of all ages have ME/CFS. Yes, that includes children. Anyone is entitled to an "opinion" but please don't try to cloak it in "science".

SC-- You might have missed my earlier posts on CFS, but I made it very clear I dont give a shit about your disease (which, if your description is accurate, is well beyond the capabilities of MLV), how its diagnosed, or anything about it. I dont. Really. As Ive said before, bitch to someone else. Or hey, start your own blog-- I started at Blogger, which is free.

I care about XMRV because its a virus, because I like viruses. I especially have a soft spot for retroviruses.

So I want to make sure its not being misrepresented by the media or scientists studying it or the people blaming it (scapegoating it?) for their own medical issues.

So, since Im a retrovirologist, Im going to talk all I want about XMRV/MLV, retroviruses.

If you dont like it, dont read my fucking blog.

People of all ages have ME/CFS.
Right.

Including people too old to have gotten the chicken-pox or rotavirus vaccine.

So they couldnt have gotten infected with XMRV contaminated vaccines.

ERV - Nope, didn't miss your earlier post and quite frankly, I don't give a shit about CFS either (I'll try not to take the referral to 'your disease' personally as neither I nor my doctors know exactly what is wrong).

You missed my point. Opinions are fine. But a lot of people are shoved into a Dx of CFS simply for the sake of a Dx. No one has the balls to simply say 'I don't know. How about just focusing on what is demonstrable and measurable?'

I appreciate your blog. Your a retrovirologist and XMRV is an interesting retrovirus in that it is new and there is a lot to be learned.

However, the whole thing is basackwards when a very imprecise fictional entity (aka dx of exclusion) is thrown into the mix. It loads the topic with prejudice that interferes with good science. I wish that the WPI hadn't been the group leading the XMRV study. I think that they're too close to be judged impartial when it comes to this so called CFS. I understand why they are so motivated to do the work but the questions about their objectivity are an obstacle.

For me the best outcome is that good work is done illuminating the role of XMRV, or lack there of, in previously mysterious disease processes. This helps everyone by sheddding light on sub-populations and getting rid of some of the 'noise.'

So for now, I find your fucking blog interesting as questions about XMRV remain unanswered. What I choke on are presumptions about imprecise entities that no one can accurately define. Not exactly the foundation of good science.

Frankly, retrovirologists, rightly or not, arent exactly pleasant commentors when they think they are being attacked.

You have a lovely analytical mind.

But now I have a question: Could the XMRV have been introduced in the lab doing the analysis? That seems to have been the trouble with dr Nutso in England and measles in children with bowels trouble and/or/perhaps autism.

@ ERV:

If someone told a patient seriously ill with cancer "I dont give a shit about your disease, how its diagnosed, or anything about it. I dont. Really. As Ive said before, bitch to someone else", what would you think of them?

#9 gf1

"If someone told a patient seriously ill with cancer "I dont give a shit about your disease, how its diagnosed, or anything about it. I dont. Really. As Ive said before, bitch to someone else", what would you think of them?"

I would think of them as my hilarious new best friend.

For those who might be interested - http://thefirststeptoknowing.blogspot.com/

Although I feel horrible for CFS patients or prostate cancer patients there still is no evidence that these viruses are the causative agents. These conditions could make the host more susceptible to infection. This virus may just be a marker of the underlying disease much in the same way that KSHV appears in AIDS patients. It is possible these viruses are also just a red herring. Regardless, this represents a novel retrovirus replicating in humans! Whatever reason there is to study it, lets study it. Although, I do not support the anti-vaccine nut jobs XMRV does have some odd properties for a retrovirus. First of all the sequences they are pulling out of a diverse range of patients are highly similar. I know one of the HTLV viruses and foamy viruses have a high degree of conservation but I think the gamma retroviruses are generally more variable. This could indicate a single source or it could just be a virus with strict sequence constraints, relatively low replication rates etc. Second, XMLVs were a very common laboratory contaminant. This tells us other XMLVs readily infect rapidly dividing human cells in the absence of immune surveillance. Also, XMLV ERVs in the genomes of some rodent species. We know XMRV spontaneous pops out of some human prostate cancer cell lines. I think it is pretty unlikely that this was in a pharmaceutical agent (if anything a recombinant protein instead of a vaccine for the reasons Abbie pointed out). I think in order to silence critics someone should look into the possibility. People can look all they want into conspiracy theories I think the basic virology of this virus will be more interesting.

"I dont give a shit about your disease, how its diagnosed, or anything about it. I dont. Really. As Ive said before, bitch to someone else"

Nice, really appreciate that.

Re: Post # 11

Updated address: http://towardsknowing.blogspot.com/

I just want to say that I personally know the enourmous amount of 1 - one - person diagnosed with autism who had measles virus in her stomach, found in the US and not in any contaminated English study. Of course I don´t have a clue how many there are of these, but I do know that the diagnoses "autism" is very much like cronic fatigue in that it is an exlusion diagnosis and a diagnosis based on symptoms and therefore possibly different reasons.
I would also recommend that you go to a DANconference before you call DANdoctors "alternative". They use treatment without any research to show that it works, but this is mainly because there is no research that has really found any treatment that works. Unlike you they have an interest in the patient. Here is one new reference by the way, but way out of your job, though:
The possibility and probability of a gut-to-brain connection in autism.

Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Oct-Dec;21(4):205-11

Authors: Reichelt KL, Knivsberg AM

BACKGROUND: We have shown that urine peptide increase is found in autism, and that some of these peptides have a dietary origin. To be explanatory for the disease process, a dietary effect on the brain must be shown to be possible and probable. METHODS: Diagnosis was based on DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria. We ran first morning urine samples equivalent to 250 nm creatinine on high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) reversed phase C18 columns using trifluoroacetic acid acetonitrile gradients. The elution patterns were registered using 215 nm absorption for largely peptide bonds, 280 nm for aromatic groups, and 325 nm for indolyl components. We referred to a series of published ability tests, including Raven's Progressive Matrices and the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability, which were administered before and after dietary intervention. The literature was also reviewed to find evidence of a gut-to-brain connection. RESULTS: In autistic syndromes, we can show marked increases in UV 215-absorbing material eluting after hippuric acid that are mostly peptides. We also show highly significant decreases after introducing a gluten- and casein-free diet with a duration of more than 1 year. We refer to previously published studies showing improvement in children on this diet who were followed for 4 years and a pairwise matched, randomly assigned study with highly significant changes. The literature shows abundant data pointing to the importance of a gut-to-brain connection. CONCLUSIONS: An effect of diet on excreted compounds and behavior has been found. A gut-to-brain axis is both possible and probable.

PMID: 19917211 [PubMed - in process]

Phew, not the same SC as comments on Pharyngula. I was worried.

Pling: autism is not a diagnosis of exclusion. Lots of studies are ongoing and that doesn't mean we should jump right in and "try" potentially harmful things to please a child's parents. Also, not today's topic. Thanks for playing!

@gf1 and @Richard Wolford: your concern is noted.

Dearest ERV. Since you posted above like a 5-year old about how little you give a shit about CFS, I suggest you don't mention it again in your "fucking blog". Your moronic comments betray your attitude to the subject - your objectivity is long gone, pal. In future don't pretend to be a "scientist" on this subject.
Give it a rest on CFS. And if you don't like my comments - don't read my fucking post. Good luck with the attitude in your future "objective" research.

"But thats partially because I think XMRV has shit (or is one of many components, almost shit) to do with Chronic Fatigue."

Fortunately for science, not all retrovirologists (or should I say graduate students?) bring such strong preconceptions to the table. Lots of big names are on this, and the facts will be known soon enough, and we won't have to worry about what anybody "thinks".

The NY Times takes on the topic, but think it's kinda meh.

Apparently the real retrovirologists that met at the Cleveland Clinic on Nov. 11th think that XMRV, CFS and rates of infection in the population are questions worthy of their time, even when they could be ignoring CFS and attending to real diseases like prostate cancer.

"There are so many more questions than answers," Silverman said. "What is the prevalence in the general population? Is it the cause of human disease? Are CFS patients infected because they're more susceptible to the virus, or is the virus causing the disease? Is this virus a threat to public health or not?"

Silverman isn't saying much more than this right now but I would infer from these commnets that he and the others in attendance are not dismissing a real XMRV/CFS link.

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_clinic_c…

I don't know how credible this is:

http://cfidsresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientific-consensus-is-build…

"Since the landmark study appeared in Science last month, several groups have been in a race to replicate the findings of Dr. Judy Mikovits - preliminary results are beginning to come in, while other researchers are waiting for their virus samples to arrive. There is now reasonable certainty that XMRV is the causal agent of CFS/ME, as opposed to probable grounds at the time of publication. It is hoped that by the middle of next year XMRV will beyond a reasonable doubt be shown to be the causal agent of ME/CFS."

It's second-hand preliminary results on a recently started blog... (I'm just rumour mongering really), but it sounds as if early attempts at replication are at least failing to discredit the notion of a CFS XMRV link.

I know this is an older thread but for those who may still be following it, the NCI recently added a page to their site on XMRV.

One of the more interesting comments concerned the absence of XMRV found in a study of German prostate patients and controls. Of the German study the NCI states: "The variation in results could be because of methodological differences or the studies were testing for different strains of XMRV. Another reason is that the virus may be more prevalent in certain geographical regions."

Introduction of the notion that methodological differences or XMRV strains is something that I have not seen before. Until now the failure of the German study to find XMRV has simply been used to raise doubt about the Whittemore, Cleveland, NCI results.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/XMRV_QandA

As to the issue regarding the "diagnosis of exclusion" thing, just because a bunch of idiots (CDC and NIH) decide to use the "committee method" of designing a case definition and having researchers involved who know nothing about the disease and use no empirical data to decide on diagnostic symptoms does not mean that the illness is not real and it is not possible to construct case definitions that are more like traditional case definitions and based on known symptoms and empirical data.

The problem with "CFS" (correctly termed Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by the WHO since 1969 and CFS-NOS is currently a subheading with ME under G93.3-Post viral fatigue syndromes in the ICD10 index version) is the case definition and subsequent name ("CFS" instead of the already defined ME) which are intentionally vague and designed to be a Dx of exclusion (in more than just diagnostic terms) and this has unintentionally included many patients in studies that should not have been classified as ME ("CFS".)

It is likely that the main clinically defined cohort of patients that we identify as having ME will have subsets that do not conform to the main viral etiology (such as spinal stenosis patients and acute, marine ciguatera poisoning, etc.) and this also confuses the issues of diagnotics but the main confusions come with using "fatigue" (a general and universal symptom that occurs in many diseases) as a diagnostic feature instead of using the myriad of neurological and other symptoms as a diagnostic guide. The original Ramsey and Richardson case definitions were much clearer and were not based on fatigue and the newer Canadian Case Definition is light years more advanced. The CDC and Oxford case definitions however are the problems; these definitions follow the "fatigue" model, are designed to be vague, and are intentionally set up so that the severest cases are tossed out of the cohort (under the misguided assumption that a "CFS" patient "couldn't be that severe" and that physical signs such as AIDS-dementia-like plaques in the brain must be caused by some "other" unknown factor or illness which is unexplained--yet this appears consistently when patients are selected by doctors with clinical familiarity with the illness) and this leads to research confusion when only the mildest patients and patients with mental health caused fatigue are selected as being "true" "CFS" (ME) patients (acc. to Jason, et al these case definitions select approx. 40% patients with MH based fatigue--not ME or "CFS" at all.) These "conventional" case definitions are in essence self fulfilling prophecies; when one is deeply set in the paradigm in which "CFS" must be caused by some kind of mental health issue, then the resulting case definition bears this bias out and the result is that these researchers end up studying a great deal of MH based fatigue and not ME (what they are trying to call "CFS".)

Until ME research goes back to a traditional case definition (based on what it is and not what it isn't) there will continue to be confusion over how to define the illness and the resulting research will continue to appear confusing. This is not the fault of patients who are ill and just want to get better so don't blame the patient for the poor research done by old, sexist white guys who just see neurotic women and don't want to do their jobs (by the way, I would like to ask how many folks would NOT appear neurotic after spending 10-20 years without sleeping due to a glutamatergic, excitotoxic microseizure causing the alpha/delta wave sleep anomoly and while having a disease with quality of life equal to the average AIDS patient 2 months before death; the APPEARANCE of neurotic symptoms and true neuroticism are separate things.)

The only true and accurate case definition currently in use is the Canadian Consensus Definition which is based on known science and was designed by experts in the field who are familiar with current research. Had a case definition such as this been adopted from the start, the confusion that is in place about "CFS" research and definition would not exist.

Acc. to John Coffin of the NIH, XMRV is a mouse virus which begs the question of transmission from cats and other animals. This dovetails nicely with Dr. Glass's research on pet owners and animals with ME/CFS and the unusual and extremely high incidence of animal contact that patients with ME/CFS have with animals (he also found pathological changes in the necropsied animals indicating infection with some type of foamy virus.) Keeping this in mind, it is more likely that XMRV is zoonotic rather than iatrogenic (vaccine or otherwise doctor caused.)

Confusion in research is not due to the phenomena not being understandable, it is due to the lack of knowledge being in the right place at the right time so that the phenomenon can become understandable. A small amount of epistemological acumen easily bears this out. There is no such thing as a "medically unexplainable syndrome"; only "not yet medically explained syndromes."

First, Thanks to Keir (post #23) for a very cogent explanation of the problems with poor Dx criteria.

Second, for those of you looking for the latest on XMRV, I strongly recommend you not waste anymore time on the ERV site.

There are real virologists with Ph.D's that are open minded and blogging on http://www.virology.ws. Search for XMRV. There is an interesting audio discussion of many aspects of XMRV posted yesterday (http://www.virology.ws/2009/12/09/futures-in-biotech-50-more-biotech-st…). The 15 minute long XMRV discussion begins at approx. -31:00.

Adios!

SC-not-SaltyCurrent, all the 'real virologists with PhDs' in the world wont make anyone believe XMRV is the cause of CFS. Scientific facts arent based on which person or X-number of people think might be plausible.

Establishing scientific facts requires evidence.

No one has provided evidence in molecular or epidemiological form that XMRV causes CFS.

So you can either stay on ERV and learn something (like how XMRV didnt come from vaccines, you know, the post here you havent commented on because youve been so busy bitching like an idiot), or waste your time chasing a lark.

To emphasize once again, I really couldnt possibly care less.

What's the use of the words "chronic fatigue" for in the original post about anyway? Chronic fatigue and CFS/CFIDS/ME aren't the same thing at all. "Chronic fatigue" is no diagnosable illness, it's a symptom. CFS/CFIDS/ME are illnesses. SC (post #3)---just know that you have chronic fatigue as a symptom, not as an illness. The illness is way worse than "chronic fatigue" could ever be as you're discovering---the autonomic/immunological shit is bad news. When I first got sick, I was like you re: classic symptoms of mono (even showed up in bloodwork as mono even though I'd had mono 7 years earlier.) Then I went to seronegative and got better. Then mono again (objectively confirmed, or something that was kicking of positive heterophile to mono and also screwing with the EBV stuff.) And seronegative, then back to positive. Soon, like you, other stuff starts---C. Diff toxin infections in the absence of antibiotic use, mycoplasma pneumonia, repeatedly, definite pathogens that people with functioning immune systems don't get. Then the cardiac dysfunction---left ventricular failure. Yeah, it's scary and it sure isn't "chronic fatigue". Whether it's connected to XMRV, I have no idea. I'm not rushing to get tested until we know much more.
Re: vaccines. Who's to say it's not something IN the vaccine that causes something to be set off. It's the vaccine itself. I wish I hadn't gotten that swine flu vaccine in 1976. For some reason. Just wish I hadn't gotten it.
ERV---since your speciality and interest is retroviruses---lobby hard for the gov't to put some money into studying XMRV.

CORRECTION my post above:

Should read: "Who'd to say it's something in the vaccine at all, but the vaccine itself perhaps in combination with something else?"
*shrug*

"No one has provided evidence in molecular or epidemiological form that XMRV causes CFS."

Yet! SC is right, you're awfully confident that you know more than the big boys on this. I don't get it, but, *shrug*.

"So you can either stay on ERV and learn something (like how XMRV didnt come from vaccines, you know, the post here you havent commented on because youve been so busy bitching like an idiot), or waste your time chasing a lark. To emphasize once again, I really couldnt possibly care less."

Jesus Christ ERV, you sound like sociopath, not a scientist. SC has brought up valid points, respectfully - who is bitching like an idiot?

OK, we get it, it's your sandbox. I'm interested in your topics, but I'm leaving because your personality is freaking me out. Good luck with that.

According to CFS experts own characterization of CFS 'outbreaks', there is nothing about this disease that screams 'retrovirus!'.

Nothing.

Unless youre suggesting numerous mass orgies/drug parties, including children... with no asymptomatic carriers.

Or a saliva transmitted virus... with no asymptomatic carriers.

All the temper tantrums in the world and all the 'big boys' (sexist dipshit) in science wont make CFS-->retrovirus make any sense.

Hah ha ha, I think AIDS is beyond the capability of HIV.

Peer reviewed article on this subject:

http://www.frontiersin.org/virology/10.3389/fmicb.2010.00147/abstract

(note the authors have a reasonably impressive publication record, for those who like appeals to authority)

Polio is a sturdy little mo-fo. The stuff we have to do to it to 'kill it' would blow the brains out of a wussy, fragile, enveloped retrovirus like XMRV (I just have to use a teeny tiny bit of formaldehyde to kill HIV-1 in the lab).

Yes, but there are TWO kinds of Polio vaccine: you are forgetting the live attenuated vaccine administered orally (OPV). The civilized world is moving towards using only the inactivated Polio vaccine (IPV), because of you know, VAPP and stuff. But until recently the gold standard was three courses of IPV followed by OPV. That offered the best protection from both Polio and VAPP. OPV only (with an recently improved vaccine) is still used in the poorer parts of the world which are at risk of outbreaks. The health authorities are moving towards IPV only in the richer parts of the world, that haven't seen Polio in ages, because now the risks from VAPP outweigh the risks from Polio, AFAIK.

So from a historic perspective, you need to consider OPV as well â not that I think it would have any effect with regards to the conclusions about XMRV. And if you look at the world (and not only our filthy-rich countries) you need to consider OPV as well.

.
.
.

(And maybe we should inoculate the patients blood samples against XMRV before they reach the lab of Mouseovits, as they a have a tendency to get infected with XMRV plasmid)

And, of course, me forgetting the question of HOW THE FUCK XMRV could enter the blood stream when administered orally.