Persimmon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 135
Many of us have learnt over the last couple of years that the scientists working on XMRV are a diverse lot. Some are loud and argumentative; some are cautious and speak seldom, with carefully chosen words. Some have track records that include papers that turned out to be later to be flawed.
I'd be pessimistic if Judy was the only scientist still arguing for the association between ME/CFS & XMRV/MLV. However, Frank Ruscetti still seems to strongly believe in the association.
I'm mindful that Frank Ruscetti has a stellar track record. He also has a very strong background in retroviruses, and is married to a woman who has extensive research experience in murine retroviruses. Further, he gives the impression of being a cautious, feet-firmly-on-the-ground sort of person: no flamboyant or acerbic comments; no wild speculations or rash conclusions...
Hence my question: does anyone know if Frank Ruscetti has ever published a paper that's turned out to be wrong?
(I don't mean - has he ever researched a theory that hasn't turned out; I mean, has he ever put his name to a paper which has later been shown to have simply got the science wrong & drawn false conclusions?)
I'd be pessimistic if Judy was the only scientist still arguing for the association between ME/CFS & XMRV/MLV. However, Frank Ruscetti still seems to strongly believe in the association.
I'm mindful that Frank Ruscetti has a stellar track record. He also has a very strong background in retroviruses, and is married to a woman who has extensive research experience in murine retroviruses. Further, he gives the impression of being a cautious, feet-firmly-on-the-ground sort of person: no flamboyant or acerbic comments; no wild speculations or rash conclusions...
Hence my question: does anyone know if Frank Ruscetti has ever published a paper that's turned out to be wrong?
(I don't mean - has he ever researched a theory that hasn't turned out; I mean, has he ever put his name to a paper which has later been shown to have simply got the science wrong & drawn false conclusions?)