When a child and mother are the same person, one of them does not exist - XMRV

[V99]

I am assuming some people haven't understood this
http://peoplewithme.com/Thread-Would-the...ep-forward


Here is an easy to read explanation.

We have a central storage area where scientists can upload the viruses they find.
In that storage area is a sequence that at this time is said to be the PreXMRV-1 virus. Originally though, it was XMRV isolated from patient VP62. VP62 was updated to PreXMRV-1.
So the viruses have been swapped.


TRANSLATION - in simple terms

You have a child (VP62) and a mother (PreXMRV-1) and father (PreXMRV-2). There is a paternity test.
A lab (Paprotka) takes DNA samples and says the child's parents are those two PreXMRV viruses.

Later a decision is made that really the child (VP62 XMRV) and mother (PreXMRV-1) are the same person.

So either the child or mother doesn't exist.




This is why they now have to explain what is going on.

Because their entire fairy tale of a contaminate in a cell line being the cause of results is in shreds.

People should start by contacting the authorities and their state representatives. This needs a full investigation immediately.

[V99]

And admitting VP62 doesn't exist means all the VP62 studies out their were a waste of time.

[V99]

[jace (Staff)]

Nice one, V99. Thank heaven you've got your head round all this. Eco's response:

Quote:Updates to GenBank sequences are routine based on new data regarding protein annotation, etc. These updates are reflected in the suffixes .1, .2, .3 etc. Details of the generation of sequences from integrated viruses, such as PreXMRV-1 and -2 are often complicated, and may involve PCR amplification of several fragments of the virus, sequencing of the individual fragments, and stitching of the sequences together. These techniques can introduce error, but in general, are highly reliable for determining the sequence present in mice or other organisms.

Some of the scientists have moved on to other research projects and are no longer investigating XMRV.

To which I was tempted to reply, Whatever. But I have resisted.

[V99]

LOL that isn't a reply.

ha ha ha

Quote:Updates to GenBank sequences are routine based on new data regarding protein annotation, etc.

And? You still don't update one virus for a different virus, unless they are the same virus!

Quote:These updates are reflected in the suffixes .1, .2, .3 etc.

Yea, so are they the same virus?

Quote:Details of the generation of sequences from integrated viruses, such as PreXMRV-1 and -2 are often complicated,

Yea! PreXMRV-1 and 2 are separate viruses, and PreXMRV-2 isn't included in this!

Quote:and may involve PCR amplification of several fragments of the virus, sequencing of the individual fragments, and stitching of the sequences together.

What was stiched together then? Is PreXMRV-1 and VP62 the same virus?

Quote: These techniques can introduce error, but in general, are highly reliable for determining the sequence present in mice or other organisms.

So have they reliably determined that VP62 is actually PreXMRV-1? which has a truncated gag and therefore cannot be the Mikovits and Ruscetti sequences!!!!!!!!!!!!

[V99]

I guess they think they can stay silent on this and saying nothing will help them. No, I am afraid they have to now explain why they are showing up as the same virus!!!

We don't get manipulated into a silent response from a nobody.

[V99]

Who did Ego say he was responding for?

It is odd to say he is responding for someone if he cannot name them.

[JEJ]

V, thank you for your great contribution.
Best