1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Phoenix Rising Adds Two New Board Members
Mark Berry introduces the new President of Phoenix Rising, Dr. Gary Solomon, and welcomes Professor Jonathan Edwards to the Phoenix Rising Board of Directors.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Daily Beast: Interview with Mikovits who tells her side of events...

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Firestormm, Jul 23, 2012.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes:
    10,311
    England, UK
    Thanks Sam :thumbsup:
  2. free at last

    free at last Senior Member

    Messages:
    558
    Likes:
    96
    I wonder if that same chest was used to store the uk 50 ashford study. I thought the samples were sent directly to 3 different places ( labs ) though i may be wrong on that information but thought samples were sent directly to the WPI NCI and another lab, that i dont recall the name off ? something else ive never understood didnt the 3 labs concur on positive negative readings of patient samples. if so. how well did they concur. Not sure if this information has ever been forth coming. But interesting questions none the less. Sorry for more questions. and little info. But thought it worth mentioning to those that might know more about this than i do
  3. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    Hi free thanks for putting up this question.
    I have just checked my IiME DVD from June 2011 and Dr Mikovits says that independent phlebotomists were sent to carefully selected patients, the samples were prepared at the NCI aliquoted and frozen and sent to three independent laboratories (who prefer to remain nameless so they are not attacked) (audience laughter), and the results were 65% positive.
    ikke2001be and ukxmrv like this.
  4. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    I really should transcribe the text of this IiME talk by Dr Mikovits. She was so enthusiastic and carrying out so much new research to clarify exactly what was there. It all stopped pretty much immediately after this event. Her paper was forcibly retracted and she has been forced into silence and unable to defend her work.
    ikke2001be, beaker and ukxmrv like this.
  5. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    She clearly states that she was finding many sequences which are not XMRV.
    ikke2001be and beaker like this.
  6. free at last

    free at last Senior Member

    Messages:
    558
    Likes:
    96
    Hi Currer well they wasnt contaminated in that freezer at the wpi then on this occassion was they ?

    Those that were mobile were told to go to ashford hospital. ( that included me ) the others had home visits. just to clarify.

    But all had viral like symptoms from onset and met strict criteria. It seems if contamination was causing these readings it appears to be everywhere doesnt it.

    Suggesting if it is ( was contamination ) in this seperate ( seperate from just the WPI lab ) then some other form of contamination must be at the heart of this ? Or what ?

    Are you saying Dr Mikovits changed her mind currer on what she was finding ? because i was told i tested postive 3 out of the 4 methods used for xmrv. But was not told if all 3 labs got that same result, and how closely the results matched between all 3. If they matched closely. ( would have been a good question to ask her ) seems strange that the contamination ( if thats what it was ? ) was the same in all 3 labs ? more questions i know. But i hope they are good ones. Not sure what Dr Miller thinks of these particular questions. But would be interested on hes view.
    Sorry for going off topic somewhat. But thought this might all be relevant to the contamination statement by Dr Mikovits in some way.
  7. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    Hope I didn't miss this but how long was the culture in the lab before it was put in the cooler? Was it sent in the cooler?

    Barb C.:>)
  8. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    I cant say, Barb. It was a comment in the IiME lecture by Dr Mikovits and the most obvious sense of the remark is that the Ashford samples were not at the WPI.

    The only place mentioned is the NCI for prep. She says that the preparation of the samples was done in a clean room at the NCI.
    I assume Dr Mikovits or her team did this prep.
    But as it was a comment in passing while she was discussing something else, that is all there is to go on.

    I cant really say more, free at last. That is all the information I have got.
  9. Mula

    Mula Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes:
    46
    Three labs unable to detect a contaminant but with positivity for a range of tests... This builds a strong foundation for the viruses.

    Do you know something others do not? I don't see any mention of contamination only controversial practices by someone at the lab.
  10. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    I thought there were three labs that drew the blood but the samples were all tested at WPI?
  11. Countrygirl

    Countrygirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    819
    Likes:
    589
    UK
    Barbc56, two US phlebotomists drew our blood from around the country and then it was sent directly to the NCI. I know because a friend and I addressed the group of samples from my part of the UK myself in my box room as we waited for FedEx to collect them. We were informed that it was important that the samples did not go near the WPI, but would be tested by other independent labs.

    I also promise that the samples did not enter my freezer during the labeling stage at any point whatsoever :lol:

    C.G.
  12. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    No.
    This is an example of the futility of preventing Dr Mikovits from publishing. We could discuss the pros and cons of the Ashford study if that study had not been refused publication.

    We know it was a positive study from the above report at the IiME conference.
    If it had been a negative study you bet the journals would have been willing to publish it.

    But how to find out any details? - nothing can be known about the design of this study and why it got the 65% positives that it did. - and is this censorship a good thing ? - no it is not!
  13. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    I was talking about the wrong thread. Oppsie!!:D

    If a paper is not published it's most likely because it didn't get past peer review or wasn't up to standard requirements to be published.Conspiracy theories are a too simplistic way of dismissing a theory as situations are really more complicated than that. Stronger proof is needed.

    I need a citation for the Ashford study if someone has one. I will also keep looking.

    Thanks.
    Barb C.:>)
  14. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes:
    10,311
    England, UK
    The publishing world is an old boys network, Barb.
    Many papers that get published are very weak, and some are exceptionally weak.
    Some papers, such as the PACE Trial, get fast-tracked published with outrageous ommissions and with a flawed statistical analysis.
    The PreXMRV-1/PreXMRV-2 Paprotka paper got published even though it had very little in the way of quality control or evidence.
    So if Mikovits' study got turned down, then it either had to be really absolutely appallingly bad, or politics was at play.
    And I can guess which it was.
    XMRV appears to be too hot to handle, for whatever reasons.

    What sort of citation are you after?
    currer likes this.
  15. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    I know it's a good old boy's network and I have personally seen this. That being said, that doesn't negate the standards for publication of most journals, as other scientest see the studies. If a publication repeatedly publishes poor studies, it's credibility goes down. Certainly not a perfect system but in the long term it is a good system as just like science there are inherent checks and balances.

    IMHO, I don't think the retraction of the original science paper was strictly political and think more information about the study will eventually come out.

    Lest I be accused of being on the side of the psychobabblers, I think the PACE study was shoddy.

    But science will out!!:)

    Barb C.:>)

    ETA
    I don't think it's because XMRV is too hot but the fact that at this point in time XMRV research would be fruitless or at least at the bottom of the list for more studies what with all the negative papers about XMRV.
  16. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes:
    5,445
    I expect that it would be incredibly difficult for Mikovits to now get a positive XMRV study published, even if it seemed to be very well done.

    If I was an editor of a journal whose reputation I wanted to protect, then I wouldn't be willing to publish a paper from Mikovits which claimed to show a correlation between CFS and XMRV until we've seen the result from Lipkin. There seems to be so great a danger of contamination, something of a history of misleading claims, and there's already a study going on in which her claims are being independently tested.

    The scientific process can be rather political. In the case of XMRV, we have the sort of matter which lends itself to the development of clear and objective evidence, but in other areas I have far less confidence that the application of the scientific process (as it currently operates) will do more good than harm.

    Not a perfect fit, but I'm reminded of a quote from Keynes. Science will out in the long run, but:

    "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."
    taniaaust1 and barbc56 like this.
  17. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    1,940
    London
    But it's "just" a feeling on your part Barb though, isn't it?

    You haven't seen the Ashford paper or any of the papers that Dr Mikovits said she had in her drawer and couldn't get published.

    Are you saying that all the "negative" XMRV papers are better than ones that Dr Mikovits and Dr Ruschetti would have produced. We don't have any data to make that judgement and it's all opinions.
    currer and RL_sparky like this.
  18. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    I don't know if better is the word I would use but perhaps papers that will hold up to scrutiny by science. Papers that are more "solid".

    I can't say more than "feeling" without being moderated, :lol:

    Barb C.:>)
  19. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes:
    865
    How about "looking at the big picture:? Well, I guess it still means in the long run we are dead.

    I love this Esther!! :balloons:

    Barb C.:>)
  20. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes:
    4,553
    Are Mikovits et al too good for PLoS? Remember that is where the first XMRV-negative study was published.

    Esther12's quote of Keynes was spot on: [Science will out in the long run, but] "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." I do not think that is an exaggeration either, because science moves painfully low in the CFS world, so some of us will be dead and many others will be elderly with wasted lives by the time real progress is made and there are effective treatments.

    The scientific process can indeed be political, especially for the softer sciences. Even when science wins out or corrects itself, there can be a long delay in acknowledgment and application. For example, the "science" (data) has already discredited the deconditioning model of CFS which never had much evidence to support it, but how many more years do we have to put up with it and assumptions that GET is routinely exercising patients back to recovery, another 10-25 years?
    ixchelkali and Bob like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page