Mady Hornig, M.D. vs Trustees of Columbia University and Walter Ian Lipkin, M.D.

AquaFit

Active Member
Remy, what you say about women suffering in the workplace and historically is correct. I don't know these individuals personally, I've only met them casually. I don't think that in the struggle to support what is right that we need to be humourless. If there's a call to action to the ME/CFS community to support one or both of these researchers I would never trivialize that call. I'm only responding to the worry stated here of how does this affect research.
 
Last edited:

weyland

Well-Known Member
XMRV testing is completely unreliable at this point it seems. As far as I understand, any true detection of it in human samples is due to contamination. Anything else is a false positive. I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.

In this study, we discuss the current status of this controversial association and propose that a major role in the unreliability of the results was played by the XMRV genomic composition in itself. In this regard, we present bioinformatic analyses that show: (i) aspecific, spurious annealings of the available primers in multiple homologous sites of the human genome; (ii) strict homologies between whole XMRV genome and interspersed repetitive elements widespread in mammalian genomes. To further detail this scenario, we screen several human and mammalian samples by using both published and newly designed primers. The experimental data confirm that available primers are far from being selective and specific. In conclusion, the occurrence of highly conserved, repeated DNA sequences in the XMRV genome deeply undermines the reliability of diagnostic PCRs by leading to artifactual and spurious amplifications. Together with all the other evidences, this makes the association between the XMRV retrovirus and CFS totally unreliable.

From this study that was just published.
 
Last edited:

weyland

Well-Known Member
I don't think there is anything wrong with the negative studies. The issue appears to be with false positives rather than false negatives. As I mentioned, in the newly published study, they found the PCR primers used for XMRV detection will randomly bind to and amplify human DNA due to similarity to sequences in the XMRV genome.

Unless I'm missing something, a study done with no lab contamination and accurate PCR primers should show no XMRV presence in human samples. Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
 

Hustler

Active Member
Mikovits used complementary DISCOVERY methods.

This was not about detection

This was about IDENTIFICATION AND DISCOVERY

The negative studies just tried to detect Silverman s clown of a virus

Mikovits was VERY vocal RIGHT FROM THE START that she had found

X
MLV Mikovits
R
V

and not some crap from Silverman which tons of negative papers also wanted a piece of to keep their labs funded

We see it

We are angry

We are cured on ARVs

It s OVER for Lipkin
 

Hustler

Active Member
Cos she detected

X
MURINE LEUKEMIA RELATED retrovirus
R
V
m
i
k AND NOT
o
v
i
t
silverman xmrv VP62 like all the negatives!!!!
 
XMRV testing is completely unreliable at this point it seems. As far as I understand, any true detection of it in human samples is due to contamination. Anything else is a false positive. I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.



From this study that was just published.
why they never brought back a reliable acure none contaminated test for xmrv mlv related viruse????
why??
to big to large epidemic involving to many disease , not everyone that get the retroviral infection will develope me/cfs.. many others will develope cancers autism, lupus, ms, als, to big of a hit in big pharma trillion dollar pocket..
 
Lipkin is the guy who published the definitive negative paper on xmrv

The Hornig complaint says Lipkin would try to force certain conclusions that were not backed up by the data

Worrying
lipkin study was a total fraud cover up just as it has being me/cfs for decades!!!
 

weyland

Well-Known Member
why they never brought back a reliable acure none contaminated test for xmrv mlv related viruse????
why??
My barely informed guess is that because it's difficult to develop a test for these viruses. There appears to be a huge issue with cross reactivity due to how closely related gamma retroviruses are to our own ERVs.
 
What a shame all the way around. For Mady - who seems wonderful - for Lipkin - who's work is now threatened - and for us who need them both.

We only have Mady's side of this so far but the lawsuit asserts that Dr. Lipkin had the opportunity to change his ways - and the University suggested that he do so - but he didn't and now valuable future and past ME/CFS research has gotten caught in the middle. If that's true then what shame that things weren't worked out.


One thing is clear - that Dr. Hornig felt compelled to take what amounts to a "nuclear option" - publicly suing Lipkin and the CII - which amounts to putting her career at risk. She apparently didn't see any other way out.

I imagine this will have an impact of the CII's attempt to become an NIH research center; another shame given their reputation and resources. I would have picked them to be one of the top three.

If we could get over the XMRV thing, then we can get over this but it does not help! Sometimes life interfers
reputation you said cort ??
 

Get Our Free ME/CFS and FM Blog!



Forum Tips

Support Our Work

DO IT MONTHLY

HEALTH RISING IS NOT A 501 (c) 3 NON-PROFIT

Latest Resources

Top