Me gustaría saber qué opinan los que están mejorando a base de tomar antirretrovirales.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2011 ... 75105.html
K.O. a la asociación entre virus y fatiga crónica
-
Rosa Rosario
- Mensajes: 248
- Registrado: 18 Sep 2010, 19:58
K.O. a la asociación entre virus y fatiga crónica
A todo el mundo le ha dado por retractarse, qué sospechoso!
Me gustaría saber qué opinan los que están mejorando a base de tomar antirretrovirales.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2011 ... 75105.html
Me gustaría saber qué opinan los que están mejorando a base de tomar antirretrovirales.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2011 ... 75105.html
Re: K.O. a la asociación entre virus y fatiga crónica
Estaba intentando hacer un escrito bien hecho al respecto, pero estoy KO y no me lanzo, a ver si me sale algo con cara y ojos ahora, ya que has iniciado el tema...
Mikovits se ha negado a retractar su estudio, lo ha hecho Science por su cuenta (cosa que, por lo visto, es bastante irregular, por lo que he leído por ahí) Mikovits dice que está en medio del estudio pagado por el NIH, y que una vez acabe ese estudio, sería el momento de (según los resultados) refrendar el estudio o retractarse.
De hecho, ayer publicó esto Ian Lipkin, en nombre de los que llevan a cabo el estudio del NIH:
A Message from CII Director W. Ian Lipkin Regarding the XMRV/MLV CFS/ME Study
Posted 12/28/2011 3:40:37 PM
-
December 28, 2011
Dear Colleagues and Friends in the CFS/ME Community:
This letter is written to clarify the status of the XMRV/MLV CFS/ME
study I am coordinating at the request of the National Institutes of
Health. Although frequently described as the “Lipkin Study,” it is in
fact the Alter, Bateman, Klimas, Komaroff, Levine, Lo, Mikovits,
Montoya, Peterson, Ruscetti, and Switzer study, designed by these 11
investigators to bring their best methods for case ascertainment and
characterization and state-of-the-art molecular and serological
diagnostic tools to address the question of whether a retrovirus is
associated with disease. My role in conjunction with Mady Hornig and
Bruce Levin at Columbia University is to ensure that the study
represents an appropriately powered, definitive, representative sample
of CFS/ME patients across the United States; to receive and distribute
samples; and to assess results obtained in individual laboratories for
consistency and evidence for or against an association between
retroviral signal and disease. I use the term “signal” because any
finding related to a retrovirus, whether infectious or noninfectious,
genetic material, protein, or antibody, may provide insights into
disease or allow development of diagnostic tests even if a causative
relationship is not established. My condition on accepting this charge
from the NIH and the clinical and laboratory investigators is that
each participant agree to unconditionally accept group criteria for
defining cases to be used in this study. Laboratory investigators were
also required to unequivocally endorse their results at the conclusion
of the study. Several months were required to develop clinical
criteria for case and control definition and to complete approvals for
human subject protection. We encountered additional delays when Dr.
Mikovits could no longer pursue her work at the WPI. At that juncture,
some parties suggested that the work proceed at WPI without her.
However, in my judgment, the value of this study rests in its
inclusion of the original investigators who reported the XMRV/MLV
findings. Thus, I was grateful when we found a way to fully engage Dr.
Mikovits. At the time of this writing we have collected and
distributed for laboratory analysis samples from 123 CFS/ME patients
and 88 matched control subjects. We intend to complete collection and
analysis of samples from 150 patients and 150 controls in early 2012.
There is criticism in some quarters that this study is unnecessary
given results obtained by other investigators with other samples.
However, the participating clinical and laboratory investigators and
our team at Columbia do not agree. We are fully committed to
completing the work rapidly and rigorously. For those who continue to
express concerns that this study is an inappropriate use of resources
in a challenging fiscal environment, please be assured that more than
85% of the funding associated with this initiative is invested in
patient recruitment and characterization and sample collection,
archiving, and distribution. Thus, irrespective of study outcome there
will be unprecedented opportunity to explore hypotheses other than
that disease is due to XMRV or MLV infection.
Sincerely yours,
W. Ian Lipkin, MD
Director, Center for Infection and Immunity
En cuanto a Alter/Lo, han retractado el estudio, pero con muchas puntualizaciones al respecto: no es que no fuera reproducible, ni que fuera contaminación. Lo que han escrito es esto:
The authors wish to note the following: “Although our published
findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been
no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA
or IAP assays or in testing coded panels, we have the following
concerns:
1. The original chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patient samples were of
insufficient volume to distribute to other laboratories for
independent confirmation.
2. Only one (1) of many laboratories has found a similar association
between polytropic murine leukemia viruses (pMLV) and CFS and a
careful study of 100 CFS patients (2), as well as a coded panel
recently constructed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI) (3), have found no evidence for either xenotropic murine
leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) or pMLVs in CFS patient samples.
3. Our attempts, through collaborations, to demonstrate antibody in
affected patients, to isolate the virus by culture, or to show
integration sites in the human genome have failed to support the
initial findings.
4. While recall of eight patients from the original cohort 15 y later
showed pMLV gag sequences in seven, the copy number was very low and
phylogenetic analysis showed these sequences were not direct
descendents of the original dominant strains (4). Still later samples
from four of these patients tested negative in the NHLBI panel. While
this result could be explained by viral clearance over time, it fails
to support a sustained retroviral infection in human cells.
Although a more definitive, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID)–sponsored, coded panel of samples from 150
well-characterized and geographically diverse CFS patients and
controls is being assembled for further study, in consideration of the
aggregate data from our own laboratory and that of others, it is our
current view that the association of murine gamma retroviruses with
CFS has not withstood the test of time or of independent verification
and that this association is now tenuous. Therefore, we retract the
conclusions in our article.”
Shyh-Ching Lo, Natalia Pripuzova, Bingjie Li, Anthony L. Komaroff, Guo-Chiuan Hung, Richard Wang, Harvey J. Alter
Si a esto sumamos el artículo que puse el otro día en el foro publicado por Cheney, que hablaba de la detección del XMRV por NGS (viewtopic.php?p=7737#p7737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), pues creo que, igual que todo el mundo se lanzó en plancha a afirmar que el SFC lo causaba un retrovirus (cosa que ningún investigador, ni Mikovits, se atrevió a afirmar categóricamente) ahora todo el mundo se tira en plancha para tirarlo todo a la basura... LA CIENCIA NO ES ESO. HACE FALTA TIEMPO Y ESTUDIOS DIVERSOS PARA AFIRMAR CUALQUIER COSA CON UN POCO DE FUNDAMENTO CIENTÍFICO, caray!!!
Lo que me sigue poniendo enferma (más enferma, debería decir...) es lo que ya he comentado otras veces... esto está apareciendo en todos los medios, en cambio, lo de los noruegos, se lo callan... hablamos de intereses creados??? A mí me parece que sí
Mikovits se ha negado a retractar su estudio, lo ha hecho Science por su cuenta (cosa que, por lo visto, es bastante irregular, por lo que he leído por ahí) Mikovits dice que está en medio del estudio pagado por el NIH, y que una vez acabe ese estudio, sería el momento de (según los resultados) refrendar el estudio o retractarse.
De hecho, ayer publicó esto Ian Lipkin, en nombre de los que llevan a cabo el estudio del NIH:
A Message from CII Director W. Ian Lipkin Regarding the XMRV/MLV CFS/ME Study
Posted 12/28/2011 3:40:37 PM
-
December 28, 2011
Dear Colleagues and Friends in the CFS/ME Community:
This letter is written to clarify the status of the XMRV/MLV CFS/ME
study I am coordinating at the request of the National Institutes of
Health. Although frequently described as the “Lipkin Study,” it is in
fact the Alter, Bateman, Klimas, Komaroff, Levine, Lo, Mikovits,
Montoya, Peterson, Ruscetti, and Switzer study, designed by these 11
investigators to bring their best methods for case ascertainment and
characterization and state-of-the-art molecular and serological
diagnostic tools to address the question of whether a retrovirus is
associated with disease. My role in conjunction with Mady Hornig and
Bruce Levin at Columbia University is to ensure that the study
represents an appropriately powered, definitive, representative sample
of CFS/ME patients across the United States; to receive and distribute
samples; and to assess results obtained in individual laboratories for
consistency and evidence for or against an association between
retroviral signal and disease. I use the term “signal” because any
finding related to a retrovirus, whether infectious or noninfectious,
genetic material, protein, or antibody, may provide insights into
disease or allow development of diagnostic tests even if a causative
relationship is not established. My condition on accepting this charge
from the NIH and the clinical and laboratory investigators is that
each participant agree to unconditionally accept group criteria for
defining cases to be used in this study. Laboratory investigators were
also required to unequivocally endorse their results at the conclusion
of the study. Several months were required to develop clinical
criteria for case and control definition and to complete approvals for
human subject protection. We encountered additional delays when Dr.
Mikovits could no longer pursue her work at the WPI. At that juncture,
some parties suggested that the work proceed at WPI without her.
However, in my judgment, the value of this study rests in its
inclusion of the original investigators who reported the XMRV/MLV
findings. Thus, I was grateful when we found a way to fully engage Dr.
Mikovits. At the time of this writing we have collected and
distributed for laboratory analysis samples from 123 CFS/ME patients
and 88 matched control subjects. We intend to complete collection and
analysis of samples from 150 patients and 150 controls in early 2012.
There is criticism in some quarters that this study is unnecessary
given results obtained by other investigators with other samples.
However, the participating clinical and laboratory investigators and
our team at Columbia do not agree. We are fully committed to
completing the work rapidly and rigorously. For those who continue to
express concerns that this study is an inappropriate use of resources
in a challenging fiscal environment, please be assured that more than
85% of the funding associated with this initiative is invested in
patient recruitment and characterization and sample collection,
archiving, and distribution. Thus, irrespective of study outcome there
will be unprecedented opportunity to explore hypotheses other than
that disease is due to XMRV or MLV infection.
Sincerely yours,
W. Ian Lipkin, MD
Director, Center for Infection and Immunity
En cuanto a Alter/Lo, han retractado el estudio, pero con muchas puntualizaciones al respecto: no es que no fuera reproducible, ni que fuera contaminación. Lo que han escrito es esto:
The authors wish to note the following: “Although our published
findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been
no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA
or IAP assays or in testing coded panels, we have the following
concerns:
1. The original chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patient samples were of
insufficient volume to distribute to other laboratories for
independent confirmation.
2. Only one (1) of many laboratories has found a similar association
between polytropic murine leukemia viruses (pMLV) and CFS and a
careful study of 100 CFS patients (2), as well as a coded panel
recently constructed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI) (3), have found no evidence for either xenotropic murine
leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) or pMLVs in CFS patient samples.
3. Our attempts, through collaborations, to demonstrate antibody in
affected patients, to isolate the virus by culture, or to show
integration sites in the human genome have failed to support the
initial findings.
4. While recall of eight patients from the original cohort 15 y later
showed pMLV gag sequences in seven, the copy number was very low and
phylogenetic analysis showed these sequences were not direct
descendents of the original dominant strains (4). Still later samples
from four of these patients tested negative in the NHLBI panel. While
this result could be explained by viral clearance over time, it fails
to support a sustained retroviral infection in human cells.
Although a more definitive, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID)–sponsored, coded panel of samples from 150
well-characterized and geographically diverse CFS patients and
controls is being assembled for further study, in consideration of the
aggregate data from our own laboratory and that of others, it is our
current view that the association of murine gamma retroviruses with
CFS has not withstood the test of time or of independent verification
and that this association is now tenuous. Therefore, we retract the
conclusions in our article.”
Shyh-Ching Lo, Natalia Pripuzova, Bingjie Li, Anthony L. Komaroff, Guo-Chiuan Hung, Richard Wang, Harvey J. Alter
Si a esto sumamos el artículo que puse el otro día en el foro publicado por Cheney, que hablaba de la detección del XMRV por NGS (viewtopic.php?p=7737#p7737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), pues creo que, igual que todo el mundo se lanzó en plancha a afirmar que el SFC lo causaba un retrovirus (cosa que ningún investigador, ni Mikovits, se atrevió a afirmar categóricamente) ahora todo el mundo se tira en plancha para tirarlo todo a la basura... LA CIENCIA NO ES ESO. HACE FALTA TIEMPO Y ESTUDIOS DIVERSOS PARA AFIRMAR CUALQUIER COSA CON UN POCO DE FUNDAMENTO CIENTÍFICO, caray!!!
Lo que me sigue poniendo enferma (más enferma, debería decir...) es lo que ya he comentado otras veces... esto está apareciendo en todos los medios, en cambio, lo de los noruegos, se lo callan... hablamos de intereses creados??? A mí me parece que sí
VINCIT QUI SE VINCIT (Vence quien se vence a sí mismo)
EX NOTITIA VICTORIA (En el conocimiento reside el triunfo) 12
(tomado prestado de un amiguete... gràcies, Fran)
___________
EX NOTITIA VICTORIA (En el conocimiento reside el triunfo) 12
(tomado prestado de un amiguete... gràcies, Fran)
___________
Re: K.O. a la asociación entre virus y fatiga crónica
Es indignante!
Hoy estoy sin nada de fuerzas, así que solo decir, que eso iros tirando toooodos en plancha como bien dices Eli, de los noruegos ni susurros... en fin... mientras tanto nosotros a seguir ....
Hoy estoy sin nada de fuerzas, así que solo decir, que eso iros tirando toooodos en plancha como bien dices Eli, de los noruegos ni susurros... en fin... mientras tanto nosotros a seguir ....