BMJ Update
Popping in for an update...
Tina, you hit the nail on the head.
If WPI reported positives in what these Dutch folks found as negative, publication should not have happened until it was resolved, pure and simple.... Do we have a response from BMJ after Whittemore's letter? Would they have published had they known WPI found same samples positive? This is omission to the point of misleading.
FYI here's the section from the 29 page complaint that was sent to the BMJ and the UK Press Complaints Commission, about the van Kuppeveld
et al decision not to include the WPI's positive findings. The UK Press Complaints Commission requires that specific areas of the Editor's Code of Practice be cited, hence the language used. The submission requested an indication of intent within 10 days, with redress within 30. Submission sent in on 24th April.
Violation #1: Van Kuppeveld et als claim that they detected no XMRV in their patients or controls
From van Kuppevelds Results: We detected no XMRV sequences in any of the patients or controls in either of the assays, in which relevant positive and negative isolation controls and polymerase chain reaction controls were included.
a.
This statement is inaccurate and misleading, (violating Code of Practice item # 1, i, if not also Public Interest item 1, I serious impropriety), as the authors knowingly neglected to mention that the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) at the explicit request of van Kuppeveld tested seven samples sent to the WPI. Three of these samples were positive. Additionally, results were reported to van Kuppeveld prior to the publication of his
BMJ article, with confirmatory emails cited.
i.From the full letter documenting van Kuppevalds requests for the WPI at:
http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/DearDrMcClureaw4.pdf: Extract:
We would also like to report that WPI researchers have previously detected XMRV in patient samples from both Dr. Kerrs and Dr. van Kuppevelds cohorts prior to the completion of their own studies, as they requested.
ii.From translation of the Ortho article on this topic at:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/whitt...ortho-web-post-by-toine-de-graaf/382483903025 Frank Van Kuppeveld has sent us seven samples, Mikovits said. They were numbered 1 to 7. It was about cDNA, that he had made out of RNAWPI tested these seven samples with advanced PCR techniques in a closed system, so that contamination was impossible. Three samples appeared to be positive. After they reported the positive numbers to UMC St. Radboud, a message was returned, saying it concerned 2 patients and one control subject. For Mikovits, this result was expected. We never were informed how many control persons there were on those seven samples, but two positives in seven is approximately what I expected. I didnt count on a 100% score, especially not with PCR.
An indication of how influential this omission of positive findings was and why this is in the Public Interest to correct it: One of many science blogs commented that even with cohort discrepancies, one might expect to find SOME positive XMRV samples in CFS patients. From ScienceBasedMedicine: (
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3932 )
Even if you think that some of the UK subjects didnt qualify as having CFS, if even a few of them had CFS and the virus was really associated with it, the virus should have shown up in at least a few subjects.
Well, the virus DID turn up in a few subjects. But van Kuppeveld
et al withheld that pivotal information, allowing scientists around the world to conclude that something was rotten in the
Science work not in Holland. (This violates Editors Code of Practice # 1, iii in that the BMJ did not clearly differentiate between comment, conjecture, and fact. The omission of a comment on the positive WPI findings allowed readers to conjecture incorrectly that the Science findings were flawed.) Additionally, van Kuppeveld in a subsequent interview claimed that the WPI results were inaccurate something that should have been transparently revealed, and explicitly addressed in the Discussion section.
In other words, van Kuppevelds omission had a ripple effect in the scientific world that was not justified, based on the flaws in his teams science and the BMJs peer-review process. For this reason this necessarily invokes the Public Interest, specifically items #1, ii protecting public health and safety -; and #2 Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organization.
Gerwyn & Natasa too - thanks for your insights. :Retro smile: Omerbasket, what you said really jives.
That thing might explain - even if everything that the dutch researchers says is correct - why they couldn't find XMRV in samples that were XMRV positive: They used PCR on a sample sent to them by Dr. Mikovits - a sample, that as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), might still have replicating cells - and found XMRV (let's assume, although I'm really suspicious about these dutch researchers, as well as the british ones). Than, they took their own samples - old samples in which the cells were not replicating - and used, let's say, the same PCR test on them. They didn't find anything because the cells in these cases were not replicating, as oppose to the case with the WPI sample.
And the crux of this whole mess, Ladies and Gentlemen. THAT is why you have a DISCUSSION section in each and every scientific paper. So the authors can be transparent about, and give plausible explanations of discrepant results. It is the height of arrogance and hubris to deny readers the option to come to their own conclusions. Even worse, is when you're assuming you're smarter than many of the BMJ readers. After all, that's the whole idea of scientific papers: to report results - warts and all - and hope that the unvarnished facts will encourage others to research the reason for these discrepancies. It's the whole essence of the genuine pursuit of scientific knowledge. Of course if discrepant results are knowingly withheld....?!
In other words, this issue was formally included in the complaint to the BMJ and UK Press Complaints Commission. Fingers crossed...