I wish I could contribute more but I have to prioritize what is important. I love being on the forums but my health has to come first.
Since I have to support myself and I'm having difficulty working, I can't be online hours at a time researching and discussing as I would like.
alex3619: I have also worked for one of the top healthcare IT vendors and I'm well aware of what happens in information technology. At times it is discouraging to know the technology that is available yet how few understand how to use it and how it can be beneficial. One of my roles while at the IT vendor was to bridge the gap between clients, and colleagues in the clinical, hardware, software, business, and research areas. Medicine is truly fascinating but anyone who thinks they "know" everything is an idiot.
barb: I don't remember you being on PR in 2009 and even 2010 when many members were online and in chat following everything very closely. You stated:
"There seems to be a double standard when it comes to comparing Mikovits's behavior and what is acceptable verses other scientist who have come to different conclusions."
I can only state that I follow no one blindly. I'm aware of others short comings/limitations as well as my own. That said, I wonder how you come to your conclusion that there is a double standard re Dr. Mikovits? There have been numerous discussions on this forum and others challenging various publications - from cohort selection, methodology, to "conclusions" that were not supported by data presented in the publication.
From watching live discussions among the key players/scientists over the years and also understanding (to a degree) the science that was under discussion, there was no way I could interpret the discussions differently. I have many reasons for my views and they are based on my education, experience, and what I've witnessed first hand in live web feeds as well as reading many of the published papers.
Published papers need intense scrutiny and I am thankful that the internet provides us all with access the have not had historically. The curtains have been parted so we are much more aware of the interactions and interdependency between academia, big pharma, governments, and the media.
Firestormm: I work in a clinical laboratory which is different than a research laboratory. However, documentation is key in either situation. In the research lab, complete documentation in the lab notebooks enables scientists to go back and review what was done when they experience difficulties with assays or results that vary from what is expected. Troubleshooting assays and resolving unexpected results is part of the job.
In the clinical lab, documentation is critical to CYA (cover you A$$). While I do everything to defined procedures and policies, there are times when there are gray areas - no specific guidelines on how to handle something. For that reason, I document everything possible so there can be no mistake of what I did when, what the results were, who I called, etc. Clinical labs are subjected to required inspections. Failures on inspections can result in a facility not being able to collect government payments (e.g. Medicare payments).
I am not fully aware who currently conducts inspections on research labs where millions/billions of taxpayers money are spent each year. Oversight is a huge issue. If Dr.Mikovits came across something in a lab notebook that was not in line with her prior experience as a researcher, I'm sure it would alarm her and present her with the dilemma of what to do. She is not alone.
I see this type of issue too frequently in healthcare today. If you say something, you could lose your job. If you don't say something, it could be a patient that suffers. You're screwed either way.
Nuff said.. Time for rest. Thanks everyone for the great discussions!