fiona wrote:
I think you were pointing us to this? Is that right?
http://www.sanquin.nl/ipfa/Upcoming_Eve ... AutoFramedP10/43
Comments in the paper
•Observations not due to lab contamination
•XMRV sequence not found in human DNA
•HERVs do not have significant sequence similarity to XMRV
•XMRV therefore acquired exogenously
•Unlikely to have been acquired directly from feral mice
•Transmission provisionally assumed from other humans, routes unknown
Scroll down to this bit: p18/43
Conclusions re: CFS and XMRV
•XMRV found in 67% of CFS patients
•An immune response to the virus was detected in some CFS patients
•Data suggest that the human population is at risk from infection with XMRV (3.7% of controls DNA positive)
“Given that infectious virus is present in plasma and in blood cells, blood-borne transmission is a possibility.”Coffin and Stoye. Science. 2009.
Other findings
•Three papers from Europe found NO evidence of XMRV in several hundred CFS patients
•In one study from Japan, 2 of 32 (6.3%) PC patients had XMRV-reactive Abs as did 5 of 300 blood donors (1.7%)
•In the US 3 in 2851 blood donors had antibodies reactive with XMRV antigens
•More to come….
Err first the PDF is entitled Atler.pdf under the heading Session 4
There are only 30 slides so where do you get the other 13 from ???
Slide 10 contains the relevant information.
and the text "We (FDA & NIH) have independently confirmed the Lombardi group findings"
Slide 18 has rather nice graphic representation that is relevant to the safety to blood products testing methodolgy, but relevance to XMRV is unknown,
fiona wrote:
Three papers from Europe found NO evidence of XMRV in several hundred CFS patients
It is interesting to note that the use of PCR alone as used in these papers is the least effective way to detect XMRV as stated by Lombard et al. One commentator went on to claim that PCR will not find HIV in some one dying of AIDS simply because like XMRV blood does not serve as a resevoir of HIV.
Please note that they have validated ie proved the paper correct and have therefore used the same detection methodology as the original paper something the other three failed tests had not done.
Fiona wrote:
•In the US 3 in 2851 blood donors had antibodies reactive with XMRV antigens
You have not referenced this data from where does it come from?
As Dr Atler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_J._Alter is responsible for blood transfusion product research in USA are you claiming he is telling fibs about his own research.
The press release from the dutch journalists from Ortho.
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/xmrv-9040.html Hiliary Johnson, from Osler's web has reported that two researchers had approached her from major labs and you can't really get bigger than the NIH and FDA saying that a paper(s) were about to break validating the Lombardi et al paper.
A new study on Prostate Cancer involving has been written
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Hong%20Seunghee.pdf?case1251739728 that indicates that XMRV may be interferring with gene expression and is infecting due to genetic mutations in the genes controlling R-NASE-L activation process. Also that of the production of IL-8 that blocks the action of normal viral response IFN.
The Dutch journalists report that Alter’s lecture stated “The data in the Lombardi, et al Science manuscript are extremely strong and likely true, despite the controversy”. The lecture also purportedly stated “the association with CFS is very strong, but causality not proved. XMRV and related MLVs are in the donor supply with an early prevalence estimate of 3%‐7%. We (FDA & NIH) have independently confirmed the Lombardi group findings.”