The Borrommean Property, ME/CFS and HGRV

"Borromean property: the three together are inseparable but no two are linked"

The Borrommean Property is exhibited in three entangled circles, in which, if any one is removed the other two are no longer entangled. A less complex, and less useful, way to imagine this is to think of a 3-legged stool that will fall over if one leg is removed.

To reiterate, it takes all three circles, or properties, to manifest the whole. Until the third property is added, the other two manifest nothing as an entity, although they may separately produce manifestations unique to themselves.

This property should not be confused with Torus Circles, which are another way of entangling three circles, but in which two circles remain entangled even if any one is removed.

How This Property Might Apply to ME/CFS

(and other neuroimmune diseases)

Suppose that one theoretical circle represents the class of retroviruses now being called Human Gamma Retroviruses (HGRVs), for lack of a better description. It is possible that other retroviruses, such as the spuma retrovirus, might fulfill the requisites of this circle.

Suppose that another theoretical circle represents a virus from the Herpes Viruses family, such as EBV, herpes simplex, or a half-dozen others, all of which are common infections that the healthy immune system clears, or at least keeps at bay. This family of viruses is also extremely destructive in the immune-compromised person. It is responsible for neuropathy and rare cancers in humans and animals with compromised immune systems.

Suppose that the third circle represents a much larger menu of possibilities. These might include spirochetes such as those thought to cause Lyme disease. It might include environmental toxins such as solvents, herbicides, insecticides, fungal toxins and other virus families. Stress from surgery, traumatic accidents or extremely stressful life events like war, rape or other physical brutality might be factors.

Some Possible Scenarios

1 – Suppose a person is born with an HGRV, forming circle one.

Then a herpes virus invades, subsides and then hides in the lymphatic system of those susceptible to the disease, for whatever reason, forming circle two.

Then something from the third list, say a spirochete infection or exposure to nerve-damaging herbicides such as those derived from Agent Orange (all nerve agents) occurs to link all three.

The last two insults link with the first to cause brain and CNS damage. Depending on the age of the brain and the strengths and weaknesses of the individual's constitution/genetics, several systems of the body are damaged.

Perhaps the HGRVs stop the body from repairing itself in normal time. The fact that they write themselves into human DNA near the stop-start codons might make it possible to slow down the metabolism and/or the speed of natural repairs. This would result in pain (tissues never get completely repaired) and exhaustion (mitochondrial myopathy, unrepaired tissues and disrupted metabolism). You develop classic ME/CFS.

2 - You are born with HGRV and as a baby you are exposed to viruses from list 2 and jabbed with several vaccinations that provoke an immune response. Your HGRV is stimulated to replicate fast and furiously, damaging your immature immune system and your brain. You are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

3 – You have latent HGRV (from birth or from exposure during an outbreak) and latent EBV (or other herpes viruses). You are exposed to toxic mold, have surgery with an anesthetic that is inappropriate for your body or undergo extreme stress that damages your immune system further. You develop ME/CFS, GWS, MS, ALS or other neuroimmune disease.

4 – Same as number 3 but instead of toxins, surgery or stress as the third circle, you are infected with a spirochete from a tick bite. You develop treatment-resistant Lyme, which is actually neuroimmune disease.

Treatment Implications

Treating any one of these symptom-causing organisms may help the body function better and lighten the viral load. As one ME patient has said, it's like carrying around a backpack of rocks. If you treat one virus successfully, it's like tossing out one of the rocks. But lightening the load is not treating the whole disease complex. It does not remove the effect of that second circle; it simply makes it less.

Since we cannot go back in time and remove the latent viruses or remove the insult from the third circle/list, it follows that we need to focus on the first circle, the one that holds the whole entity together: HGRV.

We cannot remove HGRV from our bodies either, but treatment to stop replication and to stop attachment to cells and, possibly to lower the viral reservoirs, is the natural, logical next step in treating this disease.

Balancing the immune system would then help the patient to become more likely to fend off other insults in the future and keep latent viruses and retroviruses latent.

Borrommean Treatment Approach in Neuroimmune Disease

1 – Test for viruses such as the herpes viruses and the dozens of others that have been found at above normal rates in ME/CFS/Neuroimmune Disease. Treat with antiviral drugs. Develop strategies for patients with extreme sensitivity to drugs or their effectiveness. Starting low and raising dosage slowly might be required.

2 – Test and treat for immune abnormalities. Enhance immune function. Low Dose Naltrexone, Ampligen, Oxymatrine are possibilities.

3 - Test and treat for retroviruses. Ampligen, AZT, tenofovir and raltegravir are available now. Develop a protease inhibitor or retrieve from earlier HIV drug investigations.

Fragile patients might need to start with number 2, enhancing the immune system, before ever trying other drugs. Or they might be successful at starting with low doses and working up.

Stronger patients and those who haven't been sick for decades may be able to do all three legs of this three-legged stool at once. As in HIV/AIDS treatment, a drug “cocktail” may be just what the doctor needs to order.

All of these treatments are available now and there are hundreds of thousands of patients who would gladly become the subjects of treatment trials. The risk of injury or death from such treatments pales in comparison to the living death patients experience now.

My “Borrommean” Prayer

I pray that all the fighting factions, whether fighting from ego, greed, stubbornness and/or ignorance will have an attack of conscience, compassion and accountability and begin to think of all aspects of this disease as treatable now.

Blessings

Blessings on those who already have a well-developed conscience, compassion and a sense of accountability.

You know who you are!

This includes all those physicians who are already quietly doing this for patients who have the resources. Of course, it includes the WPI, which will open its translational medicine clinic for neuroimmune diseases on August 1, 2011, at the U of Nevada, Reno, truly an historical moment!

Borromean DNA

Nadrian Seeman has succeeded in making Borromean molecules. As part of his programme to develop techniques in nanotechnology, he makes DNA molecules with prescribed geometric or topological structures. The construction of known DNA knots and links provides useful objects on which to study the action of enzymes, topoisomerases, which change the topology (link type) of molecules. There are more details at the lab website.

100. Mao, W. Sun, N.C. Seeman, `Construction of Borromean Rings from DNA', Nature 386 (1997) pp137-138.

Are Singh and Bateman Afraid of Proof of Principle Studies? Why?

“Our findings do not support an association between CFS and MLV-related viruses including XMRV and off-label use of antiretrovirals for the treatment of CFS does not seem justified at present.^”

^{-Dr. Ila Singh et al}

^{http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/JVI.00693-11v1}

^{After yet another study purporting to look for HGRVs such as MLVs and XMRV in ME/CFS patients but not following the exacting protocols of the original Lombardi et al study published in Science in 2009, nor those of the Alter/Lo study, the scientific conclusions of this study were predictable. The question still unanswered: When will researchers actually replicate the original study they seek to refute? And how can they, in scientific honesty and in good conscience, keep claiming to refute the study they refuse to actually replicate?}

^{And why add the editorial and unscientific comment attempting to discourage proof of principle studies? Is it about your patent applications, Dr. Singh?  From April 7, 2011 publication of her patent application:}

Title:

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING MLV-INFECTION, AND PREVENTING AND TREATING MLV-INITIATED DISEASES

Abstract:

Compositions and methods for inhibiting infection by XMRV or other MLV are disclosed. Also disclosed are methods for treating cancers resulting from infection by XMRV or other MLV, and for preventing such cancers. The anti- XMRV/anti-MLV compounds are predominantly integrase inhibitors, such as globoidnan A, L-000870812, S/GSK1349572, S/GSK1265744, Raltegravir and Elvitegravir, and also reverse transcriptase inhibitors AZT, tenofovir, and tenofovir DF. The compounds are also useful for treating chronic fatigue syndrome or other diseases with neuroimmune symptoms resulting from an infection by XMRV or other MLV. The compositions can also include other therapeutic agents known for treating prostate cancer, breast cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias, such as anti-androgenic agents, radioisotopes, and conventional anti-cancer compounds.

^{What Is “Proof of Principle”?}

^{See my earlier post: http://biomedicalmecfs.blogspot.com/2011/01/xmrv-proof-of-principle-studies.html}

^{In short, proof of principle studies, in the case of ME/CFS, would treat a cohort of patients who have been diagnosed with the illness by competent physicians and, preferably, who have tested positive for XMRV and/or other MLVs/HGRVs, with antiretrviral drug “cocktails”, perhaps in combination with other antiviral drugs to treat some of the co-infections such as those found by Dr. Montoya at Stanford. Another possible combination might include Ampligen.}

^{Dr. Singh herself has already found that at least 3 of the ARVs considered safe enough for HIV/AIDS patients, are effective against XMRV in the lab. Is she afraid that ME/CFS patients will use this information to justify trying to save their own lives by trying those drugs? And if they come to harm, that they would blame her? That doesn't seem logical to me, but I'm trying to understand why she would come out against proof of principle trials and I can't think of any scientific reason. It has been obvious since the mid-1980s, from the brain scans of the Incline Village patients, that the disease is associated with a retrovirus and/or virus(es). Not knowing specifically which RV or virus is no excuse for not treating for them.}

^{She and her collaborators seem to have bought, or wish to promote, the establishment stereotype of ME/CFS patients as a bunch of uninformed fanatics, so desperate that they would harm themselves for no reasonable chance of improvement. Surely she is aware that any patient who tries “off-label” use of antiretroviral drugs to treat the retroviruses associated with ME/CFS are not getting these drugs without the support and assistance of their own physicians. Why accentuate the “risks”, which are acceptable for other patients with retrovirus-associated diseases such as AIDS, without acknowledging the potential benefits? The risks are well known and physicians are doing the tests and surveillance required, so they don't need to be cautioned by researchers. The cautions appended to this study create a murky atmosphere and lead to suspicions of ulterior motives by this group of researchers. At best, it only serves to support the CDC's mantra, there are no tests for ME/CFS, there are no treatments for ME/CFS. Chant three times for maximum inculcation.}

“...off-label use of antiretrovirals for the treatment of CFS does not seem justified at present.^”

^{-Dr. Ila Singh et al}

^Justified?

^{What a curious assessment and what an arrogant, giant leap of logic!}

^{Why should Dr. Singh, the Drs. Light and Bateman make this judgment for others who are equally, or better informed than they are on the subject?}

^{Does anyone actually think that Dr. Snyderman and Dr. Deckoff-Jones should have just accepted their “fate” while waiting for researchers to do the “science” in their own sweet time? See their takes on the subject on her blog: http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/}

^{Each of these physicians with personal knowledge of the disease, the research and the potential treatments and side effects came to the conclusion that intervention was and is “justified”. Each has experienced substantial improvement in quality of life. It may even be that Dr. Snyderman has saved his own life, or at least prolonged his survival.}

^{As a cancer researcher, Dr. Singh ought to be more cognizant than she appears to be of the association of all known retroviruses with immune dysfunction and rare cancers, which turn out to be not so rare in ME/CFS patients. This is just one of many similarities that ME/CFS shares with HIV/AIDS. Surely Dr. Singh is not so young or so uninformed that she does not know that early drug interventions were trialed in AIDS before all researchers were convinced that HIV was the cause.}

^{To tell ME/CFS patients like Dr. Snyderman and Deckoff-Jones, and all the rest of us, that we should keep experiencing disease progression, the deterioration in quality of life, the impoverishment, degradation and premature death that comes with having a debilitating illness that has not been dealt with in a scientific, ethical or pragmatic manner for so many decades is incomprehensible to me. It seems like an underhanded swipe at the translational medicine and research of those scientists and physicians at WPI and the University of Nevada, who are collaborating to save lives right now, not in some distant future when “consensus” has arrived.}

<sup>I have to wonder if she would have said the same thing to my mother when she was pressured by her doctor to trial tamoxifen, an unproven cancer drug that patients had to pay for themselves since it was deemed “experimental”. Why is it OK for AIDS patients and cancer patients to try “experimental” or “off-label” drugs when the alternatives can only offer an earlier death or further disease progression?

Why is Singh's co-author, Dr. Bateman, getting involved in the pay-for-treatment study of Ampligen which could be described, in part, as an antiretroviral drug? Who but ME/CFS patients will participate in this study? Hemispherx has said that those who test postive for XMRV have a higher success rate than those who don't.</sup>

^{The conclusions of this study might as well have been “...treatment of CFS does not seem justified at present.”}

^{The only “advancement” of science this study provided: more proof that no one will find the retroviruses WPI found unless and until they actually REPLICATE the study. Just going through the motions without actually REPLICATING the original study does nothing but waste money and, more importantly for me, time.}

^{The ethical, moral and scientific questions I pose to Dr. Singh and her collaborators are these: Why didn't you replicate the WPI study? Why do you engage in this double standard of attitude and treatment of ME/CFS patients vs. those with other diseases?}