Guest guest Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results show " normal. " From www.cfsviraltreatment.com: " Lerner AM, Deeter RG, O'Neill W, Dworkin HJ, Zervos M, Beqaj SH, Chang CH, and Fitzgerald JT. " Cardiac and virologic issues " pp 304- 330 from Handbook of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. LA, Fennell PA, and RR. Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003. We present the evolution of data describing studies over greater than a decade which support the paradigm that CFS is a prolonged infectious mononucleosis due to Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus or the two viruses in co-infection undergoing incomplete virus multiplication. The paradigm suggests that the immunocompetent (otherwise healthy) CFS patients' immune defenses do not allow complete virus formation, but only parts of the virus(es) genetic material is expressed. Cardiac involvement of this newly hypothesized method of virus infection leads to rapid heart pumping at rest (tachycardia) and eventually cardiac muscle pump weakening. Specific antiviral treatment has led to remarkable sustained improvement in patient well being so that criteria for the diagnosis of CFS are no longer present. Medical testing by Holter monitoring, MUGA, nuclear stress testing, cardiac biopsy, virus serologic tests and disappearance of symptoms of CFS support this theory. " - -- In , " erikmoldwarrior " <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote: > > Quote from article: > " Many CFS patients relate the onset of their symptoms to a preceding > viral infection from which they believe they failed to recover > fully. Evidence supporting such attribution had been largely > anecdotal until recent prospective studies found evidence of > protracted fatigue states following certain laboratory confirmed > infections, supporting the concept of a postviral or postinfectious > fatigue syndrome.4–7,11 > > We reported previously that a subset of CFS patients had abnormal > lactate responses to exercise at work rates below the predicted > anaerobic threshold.19 Such cases proved less likely to have > evidence of psychiatric disorder than cases with normal lactate > responses, and the finding could not be explained satisfactorily by > the effects of deconditioning or muscle disuse, either on the basis > of heart rate responses to exercise19 or from a subsequent analysis > of muscle fibre sizes and fibre type proportions.20 Further studies > using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy have shown that > some CFS patients have defective muscle energy metabolism,21–23 > notably reduced ATP resynthesis rates following exercise, suggestive > of mitochondrial dysfunction.21 " > > Wow. No " stress or stressors " " personality types " " diet " " exercise " > or " lack of exercise " involved. > A virus! Doesn't much care about your individual quirks. > What a concept! > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 " Specific antiviral treatment has led to remarkable sustained improvement in patient well being so that criteria for the diagnosis of CFS are no longer present. Medical testing by Holter monitoring, MUGA, nuclear stress testing, cardiac biopsy, virus serologic tests and disappearance of symptoms of CFS support this theory. " Anyone got more info on this? What antiviral treatment(s)? Do they get rid of the virus, or just keep it in check and you have to keep taking them? Thanks. > > > > Quote from article: > > " Many CFS patients relate the onset of their symptoms to a > preceding > > viral infection from which they believe they failed to recover > > fully. Evidence supporting such attribution had been largely > > anecdotal until recent prospective studies found evidence of > > protracted fatigue states following certain laboratory confirmed > > infections, supporting the concept of a postviral or postinfectious > > fatigue syndrome.4–7,11 > > > > We reported previously that a subset of CFS patients had abnormal > > lactate responses to exercise at work rates below the predicted > > anaerobic threshold.19 Such cases proved less likely to have > > evidence of psychiatric disorder than cases with normal lactate > > responses, and the finding could not be explained satisfactorily by > > the effects of deconditioning or muscle disuse, either on the basis > > of heart rate responses to exercise19 or from a subsequent analysis > > of muscle fibre sizes and fibre type proportions.20 Further studies > > using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy have shown that > > some CFS patients have defective muscle energy metabolism,21–23 > > notably reduced ATP resynthesis rates following exercise, > suggestive > > of mitochondrial dysfunction.21 " > > > > Wow. No " stress or stressors " " personality > types " " diet " " exercise " > > or " lack of exercise " involved. > > A virus! Doesn't much care about your individual quirks. > > What a concept! > > - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Klimas, reported on some guy called Glaser who is saying that maybe lots of illnesses (incl CFS) could be caused by not whole virus's but parts of virus's replicating and stuffing up function. She suggested that his thinking could turn alot of medical thinking on its head if he is right. He is well known. His ref is on her powerpt presentation at www.anzmes.co.nz, not sure which ppg - toward the end - maybe titled 'future'. jill --- j mascis <mascis_j@...> wrote: > " Specific antiviral treatment has led to remarkable > sustained > improvement in patient well being so that criteria > for the diagnosis > of CFS are no longer present. Medical testing by > Holter monitoring, > MUGA, nuclear stress testing, cardiac biopsy, virus > serologic tests > and disappearance of symptoms of CFS support this > theory. " > > Anyone got more info on this? What antiviral > treatment(s)? Do they > get rid of the virus, or just keep it in check and > you have to keep > taking them? > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Quote from article: > > > " Many CFS patients relate the onset of their > symptoms to a > > preceding > > > viral infection from which they believe they > failed to recover > > > fully. Evidence supporting such attribution had > been largely > > > anecdotal until recent prospective studies found > evidence of > > > protracted fatigue states following certain > laboratory confirmed > > > infections, supporting the concept of a > postviral or > postinfectious > > > fatigue syndrome.4–7,11 > > > > > > We reported previously that a subset of CFS > patients had > abnormal > > > lactate responses to exercise at work rates > below the predicted > > > anaerobic threshold.19 Such cases proved less > likely to have > > > evidence of psychiatric disorder than cases with > normal lactate > > > responses, and the finding could not be > explained satisfactorily > by > > > the effects of deconditioning or muscle disuse, > either on the > basis > > > of heart rate responses to exercise19 or from a > subsequent > analysis > > > of muscle fibre sizes and fibre type > proportions.20 Further > studies > > > using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy > have shown that > > > some CFS patients have defective muscle energy > metabolism,21–23 > > > notably reduced ATP resynthesis rates following > exercise, > > suggestive > > > of mitochondrial dysfunction.21 " > > > > > > Wow. No " stress or stressors " " personality > > types " " diet " " exercise " > > > or " lack of exercise " involved. > > > A virus! Doesn't much care about your > individual quirks. > > > What a concept! > > > - > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers. and get answers from real people who know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 " shakerz25 " <shakerz25@...> wrote: > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > show " normal. " > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr Cheney asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of an Incliner who was EBV negative. At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect EBV would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still valuable as a question mark against Straus's theory. But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I was still EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm assuming that he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a factor. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 > > > > Quote from article: > > " Many CFS patients relate the onset of their symptoms to a > preceding > > viral infection from which they believe they failed to recover > > fully. Evidence supporting such attribution had been largely > > anecdotal until recent prospective studies found evidence of > > protracted fatigue states following certain laboratory confirmed > > infections, supporting the concept of a postviral or postinfectious > > fatigue syndrome.4–7,11 > > > > We reported previously that a subset of CFS patients had abnormal > > lactate responses to exercise at work rates below the predicted > > anaerobic threshold.19 Such cases proved less likely to have > > evidence of psychiatric disorder than cases with normal lactate > > responses, and the finding could not be explained satisfactorily by > > the effects of deconditioning or muscle disuse, either on the basis > > of heart rate responses to exercise19 or from a subsequent analysis > > of muscle fibre sizes and fibre type proportions.20 Further studies > > using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy have shown that > > some CFS patients have defective muscle energy metabolism,21–23 > > notably reduced ATP resynthesis rates following exercise, > suggestive > > of mitochondrial dysfunction.21 " > > > > Wow. No " stress or stressors " " personality > types " " diet " " exercise " > > or " lack of exercise " involved. > > A virus! Doesn't much care about your individual quirks. > > What a concept! > > - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome-Leonard/dp/047141512X On 12/13/06, lifelonglearner79 <lifelonglearner79@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Quote from article: > > > " Many CFS patients relate the onset of their symptoms to a > > preceding > > > viral infection from which they believe they failed to recover > > > fully. Evidence supporting such attribution had been largely > > > anecdotal until recent prospective studies found evidence of > > > protracted fatigue states following certain laboratory confirmed > > > infections, supporting the concept of a postviral or > postinfectious > > > fatigue syndrome.4–7,11 > > > > > > We reported previously that a subset of CFS patients had abnormal > > > lactate responses to exercise at work rates below the predicted > > > anaerobic threshold.19 Such cases proved less likely to have > > > evidence of psychiatric disorder than cases with normal lactate > > > responses, and the finding could not be explained satisfactorily > by > > > the effects of deconditioning or muscle disuse, either on the > basis > > > of heart rate responses to exercise19 or from a subsequent > analysis > > > of muscle fibre sizes and fibre type proportions.20 Further > studies > > > using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy have shown that > > > some CFS patients have defective muscle energy metabolism,21–23 > > > notably reduced ATP resynthesis rates following exercise, > > suggestive > > > of mitochondrial dysfunction.21 " > > > > > > Wow. No " stress or stressors " " personality > > types " " diet " " exercise " > > > or " lack of exercise " involved. > > > A virus! Doesn't much care about your individual quirks. > > > What a concept! > > > - > > > > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each > other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment > discussed here, please consult your doctor. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Why would you assume that since it was 10 years ago? Gail rikmoldwarrior wrote: > > " shakerz25 " <shakerz25@...> wrote: > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > > show " normal. " > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr Cheney > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of an > Incliner who was EBV negative. > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect EBV > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still valuable as > a question mark against Straus's theory. > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I was still > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm assuming that > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a factor. > - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Is it just me who is getting confused? We have elevated EBV titres, we have no EBV titres - both of these indicate that we have cfs? At some point we must assume that EBV titres are meaningless to a label of cfs. Indeed, a label of cfs is meaningless. I think I will try climbing Mt. Whitney and continuing mold avoidance. Works for . a Carnes > > Why would you assume that since it was 10 years ago? > Gail > > rikmoldwarrior wrote: > > > > " shakerz25 " <shakerz25@> wrote: > > > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus > > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > > > show " normal. " > > > > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr Cheney > > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of an > > Incliner who was EBV negative. > > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect EBV > > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still valuable as > > a question mark against Straus's theory. > > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I was still > > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm assuming that > > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a factor. > > - > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 a, I'm late to this thread but: In the 80s in the US, ME/CFS (the sudden " mystery epidemic disease " ) was labeled Epstein Barr Virus. Struss at NIH hung his career on EBV being the cause. But his theory was unravelling. Dr. Cheney did a study of patients (early " mystery epidemic disease " group), who did not show EBV at all. So, this further clinched it that EBV could not be the cause. EBV titres might be high in this population, but more as an opportunistic thing, than cause. (So some used that as one possible sign, among others). The CDC was getting many thousands of calls on this disease that had slammed so many Americans so dramatically. It was right at the time that the EBV theory had unravelled that CDC finally had to make some statement, by giving an official name and definition to the Mystery, just for RESEARCH purposes...to make a criteria to study it. (I've found CDC statements that 1st said it seemed to be EBV, then said research had failed to subtantiate that, thus, the need for new name) At the CDC naming/defining meeting, ('88, Holmes) there were ME Scientists, but they were ignored. When the name/def was decided, they walked out in protest, saying " you are dooming the reseach, you are dooming the patients " . Besides that the name/def was only meant to be temporary, for research, it was left very open...to the eyes of the beholder so to speak. Some say it described ME, some say Straus/EBV influence was still strong...and most agree it sounded wimpy and whiny, and became more excuse for jokes in the Media. All of this allowed because the CDC did not do any real education/follow-up to the Medical Profession. (And as we know now, misappropriated Millions of $$ that were for " CFS " research.) I remember people self diagnosing, just on sound of the name, who had no earthly idea what those with the disease were actually dealing with.(Still today) In 1994, in another brilliant move, the CDC re-defined CFS. To be LESS restrictive, making it more open and vague, less ME-like, more generic or psych potential. (The Wessely School was part of this re-defining.) It has further been watered down since 2003. So, NOW, as opposed to at the beginning, it is a very wide umbrella, under which have been thrown (officially or not), alot of self diagnosing, diagnosis by MDs who have no idea what they are talking about, multiple conditions/diseases, and psychological problems. For this reason, as opposed to the beginning, patients and research under CFS can mean completely unrelated things. Anything from " original mystery disease " ...believed to be ME, ( " ME/CFS " ) to multiple other medical conditions, to chronic tiredness, burn out,to malingering and avoidance neurosis. The Psych lobby is also trying to take over the " ME/CFS " category. A friend of mine, a retired University Professor still thought " it " was Epstein Barr Virus. Because in the 80s, her collegue and friend (and wife of the Mayor) was severely struck by " it " , then called EBV. In the absence of any medical help or relief from the torture, and ignorance of all around her, Unable to bear it any longer, she planned and committed suicide. So those who know her think she committed suicide because of a horrendous case of EBV. Katrina > > > > > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus > > > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > > > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > > > > show " normal. " > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr Cheney > > > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of an > > > Incliner who was EBV negative. > > > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect EBV > > > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > > > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still > valuable as > > > a question mark against Straus's theory. > > > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I was > still > > > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm > assuming that > > > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a factor. > > > - > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 " kattemayo " <kattemayo@...> wrote: > > > a, > > I'm late to this thread but: > > In the 80s in the US, ME/CFS (the sudden " mystery epidemic disease " ) was labeled Epstein Barr Virus. Struss at NIH hung his career on EBV being the cause. But his theory was unravelling. Dr. Cheney did a study of patients (early " mystery epidemic disease " group), who did not show EBV at all. So, this further clinched it that EBV could not be the cause. > > It was right at the time that the EBV theory had unravelled that CDC finally had to make some statement, by giving an official name and definition to the Mystery, just for RESEARCH purposes...to make a criteria to study it. > > (I've found CDC statements that 1st said it seemed to be EBV, then said research had failed to subtantiate that, thus, the need for new name) > > At the CDC naming/defining meeting, ('88, Holmes) there were ME Scientists, but they were ignored. When the name/def was decided, they walked out in protest, saying " you are dooming the reseach, you are dooming the patients " . > Yes, I remember later hearing about the outbreak in Silicon Valley and wondering if that might have been where I was exposed to " whatever " , because I used to spend a lot of time down there Hang Gliding at Mission Ridge/Ed Levin Park near Milpitas. When Dr Cheney called me into his office and asked me to volunteer for the Holmes study group - he made it quite clear AT THAT TIME that my participation was required to rule out EBV - and this was ALSO the reason why the illness needed a new name. CEBV Syndrome certainly sounded " medical " enough, but it just plain wasn't our illness. For a time, I was in the very peculiar position of having to argue that CEBV syndrome is a serious and disabling illness, except that it ISN " T CEBV! And yup, they doomed us alright. But the idea was for the CDC to have utilized CFS for no longer than necessary to determine what the illness is, so it wouldn't have been so bad if CFS had been used with its original intent. But as we all know, that didn't happen. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 Kartina, thanks for fleshing out my comment with the historic details. Your details are exactly what I was saying: CFS is not EBV, and we have no clue what causes cfs except for those of us who know we are infected with borrelia, babesia, bartonella, ehrlichia or other parasites or worms. We know what we are sick with, we just don't know how to fix it. Avoiding mold helps. Ain't life grand? a Carnes > > > a, > > I'm late to this thread but: > > In the 80s in the US, ME/CFS (the sudden " mystery epidemic disease " ) was labeled Epstein Barr Virus. Struss at NIH hung his career on EBV being the cause. But his theory was unravelling. Dr. Cheney did a study of patients (early " mystery epidemic disease " group), who did not show EBV at all. So, this further clinched it that EBV could not be the cause. > > EBV titres might be high in this population, but more as an opportunistic thing, than cause. > (So some used that as one possible sign, among others). > > The CDC was getting many thousands of calls on this disease that had slammed so many Americans so dramatically. > > It was right at the time that the EBV theory had unravelled that CDC finally had to make some statement, by giving an official name and definition > to the Mystery, just for RESEARCH purposes...to make a criteria to study it. > > (I've found CDC statements that 1st said it seemed to be EBV, then said research had failed to subtantiate that, thus, the need for new name) > > At the CDC naming/defining meeting, ('88, Holmes) there were ME Scientists, but they were ignored. When the name/def was decided, they walked out in protest, saying " you are dooming the reseach, you are dooming the patients " . > > Besides that the name/def was only meant to be temporary, for research, it was left very open...to the eyes of the beholder so to speak. Some say it described ME, some say Straus/EBV influence was still strong...and most agree it sounded wimpy and whiny, and became more excuse for jokes in the Media. > > All of this allowed because the CDC did not do any real education/follow-up to the Medical Profession. (And as we know now, misappropriated Millions of $$ that were for " CFS " research.) > > I remember people self diagnosing, just on sound of the name, who had no earthly idea what those with the disease were actually dealing with.(Still today) > > In 1994, in another brilliant move, the CDC re-defined CFS. To be LESS restrictive, making it more open and vague, less ME-like, more generic or psych potential. (The Wessely School was part of this re- defining.) > It has further been watered down since 2003. > > So, NOW, as opposed to at the beginning, it is a very wide umbrella, under which have been thrown (officially or not), alot of self diagnosing, diagnosis by MDs who have no idea what they are talking about, multiple conditions/diseases, and psychological problems. > > For this reason, as opposed to the beginning, patients and research under CFS can mean completely unrelated things. Anything from " original mystery disease " ...believed to be ME, ( " ME/CFS " ) to multiple other medical conditions, to chronic tiredness, burn out,to malingering and avoidance neurosis. The Psych lobby is also trying to take over the " ME/CFS " category. > > A friend of mine, a retired University Professor still thought " it " was Epstein Barr Virus. Because in the 80s, her collegue and friend (and wife of the Mayor) was severely struck by " it " , then called EBV. > In the absence of any medical help or relief from the torture, and ignorance of all around her, Unable to bear it any longer, she planned and committed suicide. So those who know her think she committed suicide because of a horrendous case of EBV. > > Katrina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete virus > > > > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > > > > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > > > > > show " normal. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr Cheney > > > > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of an > > > > Incliner who was EBV negative. > > > > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect EBV > > > > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > > > > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still > > valuable as > > > > a question mark against Straus's theory. > > > > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I was > > still > > > > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm > > assuming that > > > > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a factor. > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 I think Lerner's theory is actually that CFS IS EBV, or CMV, or EBV/CMV. It's intriguing because this follows the history of " CFS is EBV, " then " CFS is NOT EBV. " Now he's saying sometimes it IS EBV, but on tests it doesn't appear to be EBV because the virus is not completely replicating, and so not stimulating an immune response. But it is wreaking havoc in the cells. I'm trying to find out if there is a marker for this--like elvated RNASE-l, perhaps? Like some say the CD57 is a marker for Lyme, which may not be generating a positive test. Yes, it's almost as confusing as the Lyme path. > > > > > > > > > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete > virus > > > > > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins its > > > > > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test results > > > > > > show " normal. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr > Cheney > > > > > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example of > an > > > > > Incliner who was EBV negative. > > > > > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to detect > EBV > > > > > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > > > > > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still > > > valuable as > > > > > a question mark against Straus's theory. > > > > > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I > was > > > still > > > > > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm > > > assuming that > > > > > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a > factor. > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 Lerner has tests that will show the fragments of some of the viruses. See the patent at http://cfids-cab.org/MESA/Lerner.html . On 12/15/06, shakerz25 <shakerz25@...> wrote: > > I think Lerner's theory is actually that CFS IS EBV, or CMV, or > EBV/CMV. It's intriguing because this follows the history of " CFS is > EBV, " then " CFS is NOT EBV. " > > Now he's saying sometimes it IS EBV, but on tests it doesn't appear > to be EBV because the virus is not completely replicating, and so not > stimulating an immune response. But it is wreaking havoc in the > cells. I'm trying to find out if there is a marker for this--like > elvated RNASE-l, perhaps? Like some say the CD57 is a marker for > Lyme, which may not be generating a positive test. > > Yes, it's almost as confusing as the Lyme path. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virus, maybe...But have you heard this one-- " incomplete > > virus > > > > > > > multiplication " ? Virus doesn't kill the cell, just ruins > its > > > > > > > function. And doesn't stimulate antibodies, so test > results > > > > > > > show " normal. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I remember there was some question about this when Dr > > Cheney > > > > > > asked me to participate in the Holmes study as an example > of > > an > > > > > > Incliner who was EBV negative. > > > > > > At the very least, it would seem that the inability to > detect > > EBV > > > > > > would not be representative of " Chronic EBV " . > > > > > > So even if I had suppressed EBV, this weirdness was still > > > > valuable as > > > > > > a question mark against Straus's theory. > > > > > > But Dr re-did my evaluation in '97 and said that I > > was > > > > still > > > > > > EBV negative and " Still the perfect case of CFS " , and I'm > > > > assuming that > > > > > > he would have known at this point if EBV suppression was a > > factor. > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each > other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment > discussed here, please consult your doctor. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 " shakerz25 " <shakerz25@...> wrote: > > I think Lerner's theory is actually that CFS IS EBV, or CMV, or > EBV/CMV. It's intriguing because this follows the history of " CFS is EBV, " then " CFS is NOT EBV. " > > Now he's saying sometimes it IS EBV, but on tests it doesn't appear > to be EBV because the virus is not completely replicating, and so not stimulating an immune response. But it is wreaking havoc in the > cells. I'm trying to find out if there is a marker for this--like > elvated RNASE-l, perhaps? Like some say the CD57 is a marker for > Lyme, which may not be generating a positive test. > Like I said before, we knew that the illness was not EBV before CFS was created. Or we simply would have continued to call it CEBV. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 But his current theory has not been disproved, is that correct? -chris > > Like I said before, we knew that the illness was not EBV before CFS > was created. > Or we simply would have continued to call it CEBV. > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 " cmdrexel2008 " <cmessina@...> wrote: > But his current theory has not been disproved, is that correct? > -chris I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are enough to stimulate illness but not a measurable titre in all but a few individuals. But if this were true, EBV would be acting in an unfamiliar way. So at best, it would be " whatever changed " to enable these incomplete viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that is inconsistent with the normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV negatives " possess these fragments, I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV fits in the whole deal. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 > > But his current theory has not been disproved, is that correct? > > -chris > > > I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are enough to stimulate illness > but not a measurable titre in all but a few individuals. > But if this were true, EBV would be acting in an unfamiliar way. > So at best, it would be " whatever changed " to enable these incomplete > viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that is inconsistent with the > normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. > > If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV negatives " possess these fragments, > I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV fits in the whole deal. > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 Would the 'viral fragment theory' explain why so many people who have CFS are allergic to so many things? Literally just about everything I eat makes my heart race, etc. I mean, if your immune system was responding to 'viral fragments', then why would it attack EVERYTHING? Has anyone here tried antivirals? Thanks. > > > But his current theory has not been disproved, is that correct? > > > -chris > > > > > > I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are enough to stimulate > illness > > but not a measurable titre in all but a few individuals. > > But if this were true, EBV would be acting in an unfamiliar way. > > So at best, it would be " whatever changed " to enable these > incomplete > > viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that is inconsistent with > the > > normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. > > > > If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV negatives " possess these > fragments, > > I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV fits in the whole deal. > > - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I think the theory is that the immune system is NOT responding to viral fragments. They are not replicating completely, and not killing the cells, just disabling them. Maybe impacting mitochondrial function, reducing energy production, which then causes increased sensitivities and allergies...? > > > > But his current theory has not been disproved, is that > correct? > > > > -chris > > > > > > > > > I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are enough to stimulate > > illness > > > but not a measurable titre in all but a few individuals. > > > But if this were true, EBV would be acting in an unfamiliar way. > > > So at best, it would be " whatever changed " to enable these > > incomplete > > > viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that is inconsistent > with > > the > > > normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. > > > > > > If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV negatives " possess these > > fragments, > > > I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV fits in the whole deal. > > > - > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 " shakerz25 " <shakerz25@...> wrote: > I think the theory is that the immune system is NOT responding to viral fragments. They are not replicating completely, and not killing the cells, just disabling them. Maybe impacting mitochondrial function, reducing energy production, which then causes increased sensitivities and allergies...? > Yes, I believe that is the theory, but it's an old one. This idea of unmeasurable EBV was brought up almost instantly when Dr Cheney found some of us who were EBV negative. I think it's discussed in Osler's Web. But the circumstances still suggest that EBV has been reactivated as the result of something else, rather than the cause. This is what Dr Cheney/ believe, and I have no particular reason to doubt them. - eMedicine - Chronic Fatigue Syndrome : Article by Burke A Cunha, http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3392.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 Then what of all the 'increased immune activation' and 'decreased immune effectiveness' in CFS patients? Where would that come from? Thanks > > > > > But his current theory has not been disproved, is that > > correct? > > > > > -chris > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are enough to stimulate > > > illness > > > > but not a measurable titre in all but a few individuals. > > > > But if this were true, EBV would be acting in an unfamiliar way. > > > > So at best, it would be " whatever changed " to enable these > > > incomplete > > > > viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that is inconsistent > > with > > > the > > > > normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. > > > > > > > > If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV negatives " possess these > > > fragments, > > > > I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV fits in the whole deal. > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 I understood Klimas to mean that people could be " reacting " to viral particles and hence staying activated - but I guess the mechanism is a whole heap more complicated than that. jill --- j mascis <mascis_j@...> wrote: > Then what of all the 'increased immune activation' > and 'decreased > immune effectiveness' in CFS patients? Where would > that come from? > > Thanks > > > > > > > > But his current theory has not been > disproved, is that > > > correct? > > > > > > -chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose not, if viral EBV fragments are > enough to > stimulate > > > > illness > > > > > but not a measurable titre in all but a few > individuals. > > > > > But if this were true, EBV would be acting > in an unfamiliar > way. > > > > > So at best, it would be " whatever changed " > to enable these > > > > incomplete > > > > > viral fragments to initiate an epidemic that > is inconsistent > > > with > > > > the > > > > > normal parameters of EBV pathogenesis. > > > > > > > > > > If Dr Lerner can show that we " EBV > negatives " possess these > > > > fragments, > > > > > I guess I'll have to reconsider where EBV > fits in the whole > deal. > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers. and get answers from real people who know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I saw Lerner. He is very caring. Sticks strickly to his own methods and only goes by his tests. My ebv and cmv were negative or low so he didn't prescribe the anti-virals. I made 2 trips, he wanted me to come back but I couldn't afford it. People in his waiting room said he helped them a lot. Kathy A few people had tried him on CFS-L list. Posted by: " lifelonglearner79 " Sat Dec 16, 2006 --- In , " erikmoldwarrior " < From what I have read, one is not suppose to get EBV in its active phase more than once in a lifetime, however, I had really bad cases at age 2 and age 19, which I believe triggered my downward spiral into CFS, with all its comcomitant factors, including severe allergies to mold, as well as, to other environmental toxins/substances. Then, I was diagnosed with CMV, in its active phase, during the diagnosis of CFS. Now, I have had Tachycardia/Cardiac issues. I doubt, though, at this point, into my late stage of CFS, whether antivirals would be effective. Has ANYONE, HERE, seen Dr. Lerner??? TIA, Amelia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.