From ‘Transfusion', the journal of the American Association of Blood Banks, 21 November 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03450.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus does not pose a risk to blood recipient safety
Dodd RY, Hackett Jr J, Linnen JM, Dorsey K, Wu Y, Zou S, Qiu X, Swanson P, Schochetman G, Gao K, Carrick JM, Krysztof DE, Stramer SL.
From the American Red Cross Holland Laboratory, Rockville, Maryland; Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, Illinois; Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, California; the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the American Red Cross Scientific Support Office, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
When xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was first reported in association with chronic fatigue syndrome, it was suggested that it might offer a risk to blood safety. Thus, the prevalence of the virus among blood donors and, if present, its transmissibility by transfusion need to be defined.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:
Two populations of routine blood donor samples (1435 and 13,399) were obtained for prevalence evaluations; samples from a linked donor-recipient repository were also evaluated. Samples were tested for the presence of antibodies to XMRV-related recombinant antigens and/or for XMRV RNA, using validated, high-throughput systems.
RESULTS:
The presence of antibodies to XMRV could not be confirmed among a total of 17,249 blood donors or recipients (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-0.017%); 1763 tested samples were nonreactive for XMRV RNA (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.17%). Evidence of infection was absent from 109 recipients and 830 evaluable blood samples tested after transfusion of a total of 3741 blood components.
CONCLUSIONS:
XMRV and related murine leukemia virus (MLV) markers are not present among a large population of blood donors and evidence of transfusion transmission could not be detected. Thus, these viruses do not currently pose a threat to blood recipient safety and further actions relating to XMRV and MLV are not justified.
© 2011 American Association of Blood Banks.
PMID: 22098340 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]
Can the MEA post all the VP62/XMRV papers together so that people can clearly see the papers that do not apply to the Dr Mikovits and Dr Ruscetti discovery? This would include the negative papers and the blood working group.
How can these people pretend the blood supply is protected when they have looked for the wrong viruses, as VP62/XMRV is now proven to not be the viruses discovered in people with ME, when that synthetic virus is only a strain never once found in nature and when making the same choice for HIV would have resulted in millions of deaths?
It is also possible for the MEA to finally highlight how non of the negative papers have clinically validated their assays. Again, it is actually illegal to declare anyone HIV negative using an assay that is not clinically validated! Here are some reasons why!
“In my view the CDC paper should not have been published without a proper positive control, eg patient samples known to contain XMRV. If I had reviewed the CDC paper that’s what I would have asked for.” Professor Vincent Racaniello
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?187-Dr-Mikovits-and-Dr-Racaniello-on-XMRV
“It’s just not sufficient to show that something can detect something in a plasmid template. It’s hard to know if it’s going to detect something in a matrix that’s as complicated as blood or cellular DNA. So I think that’s probably one of the biggest reasons for why people find different results..” Dr Ila Singh
http://www.twiv.tv/2010/08/08/twiv-94-xmrv-with-dr-ila-singh/