Dr. Lombardi is Research Director

I'm not convinced that is targeted at Judy. but more towards positive XMRV science. I'm almost positive Dr. Singh's autopsy study has been completed since November or December and no word yet? Judy made it known at the UCLA talk that she had "a drawer full of papers that I can't get published".

The fact that journalistic politics is stifling science that could be contributing to a treatment for PWC's really pisses me off royaly. The NIH should buy these studies and let researchers take the information and move forward with this science. The whole process is very wrong!

I agree she's taking one for the team here, but my point is it won't matter. Judy is not the problem.........it's XMRV's connection to CFS. I don't think Lombardi will get any more papers published than Judy did, or will one more dollar of research funding find it's way to WPI.

There's two sides to this announcement though.
There is a negative side where Judy can't get her papers published.
But there is a positive side, where her belief in the XMRV-CFS connection is very strong and she is moving forwards with patients trials anyway.
The statements on the blog, linked to earlier, state that Judy has had a lot of very positive interest from other players (possibly drugs companies?), and that drug research and patient trials, will hopefully go ahead with Judy at the helm.

It is appalling to see this political stuff going on, but I think that XMRV is not going to disappear just yet.
There's still a lot of positive work to be published and carried out by many strong players yet.

Well, I'm trying to be positive. It helps me.

Doubt I could have written eloquently and succinctly as you did, but I really like what you said and enthusiastically agree. Main point to me is how horribly wrong it is for politics to take priority over science at the expense of human lives. My God, how wrong it is.

You're right, of course. It's not as if Judy Mikovits is rolling over and giving up, either. Most of the time I try to keep focussed on the positive, too; just sometimes all the politics getting in the way of good, clean science makes me so darned mad.

I guess that if the WPI and drug companies would perform clinical trials and show improvement in XMRV positive patients with drugs that helps against XMRV, than it would be easier to publish because of the power of the drug companies, and it would make the XMRV theory more accepted - because of the trial results.

Really? Might want to tell that to Elaine Defreitas.

I disagree. THis is not 1991 at all in my opinion. Back in 1991 you had only one federal agency involved. Now you have NIAID, NCI, FDA and CDC heavily involved. Plus you have the Blood WORking group and many imminent researchers including Lipkin, Ruscetti, Lo, Singh, Silverman (Cleveland CLinic).....The degree of work done on XMRV is light years ahead of 1991. THis time they are really trying to figure it out and hopefully they will and we won't be left hanging..

We'll see how Dr. Lombardi does. The WPI is not included in the funding but that, I think, is another story.,

This is smart move by the WPI but overdue. I think they were big trouble when Dr. Mikovits statement about XMRV being bigger than HIV in Africa hit the media quite a while ago. As a graduate student I was taught that the one thing you never want to do is overstate - and to always err on the side of caution.

She just ended up being not a good fit for that position. Successful Research Institutes do things in a certain way...they are objective, they are cautious, they re polite.....they do the things they need to do to be successful as a Research Institute. Something has gone wrong..The WPI hasn't been able to get grants at a time when they should have been pouring in - and when other Institutes were getting them and studies are continuing to pour out.

I think its purely a business decision....it wasn't working with Judy - so now they're going to try someone else. I'm sure it was a tough decision to make but it had to be done for the sake of the Institute and the ME/CFS Community. I'm sure Dr. Lombardi will do fine -he seems to fit the mold better...he has a lot of work to do to repair some bridges.

Cort are you saying Dr Lombardi starts from square one? None of judy's work happened, and he has to redo the research? Do you think they'll publish Judy's work now because Dr. Lombardi is the head of research? Maybe I follow Hillary Johnson too closely, but I just don't see the government rolling over and giving up on 30 years of cover up.

What a load of bollocks.

It was a decision made with the intent of getting us treatments as soon as possible. The basic research has been done. Now they want to help us get better.

It has nothing to do with it being a business decision. Unless you account for the WPI's business is to find treatments for us. In which case I agree. Judy can do more for us now working outside the lab in finding collaberators and working with Pharma to help us get well.

It's a tactic to speed things up not a sign of any kind of failure. On the contrary it's a sign of confidence and one showing how much success has been made in the lab.

I'm not exactly sure why Judy can't get her papers published, but do you believe that it might be solely due to Judy's character rather than the political situation Cort?

Judy might not have always followed all the social or professional etiquette 'expected' of her by her peers.
But if she had always followed the expected etiquette, and had never upset any other researchers along the way, do you think that we would be in a significantly better situation to where we are now with regards to XMRV research?
If Judy had easily been silenced and had not fought her corner, then, personally, i don't think that we would be in a better place now. And I don't think that there would have been so much scrutiny placed on all of the negative XMRV research, or so much publicity given to the positive XMRV research. So I think that Judy's done us a huge favour by not following the expected professional etiquette.

This is all just 'opinion' though, and I don't think it's worth our community getting distracted with conversations about whether Judy should have been a perfectly meek scientist or not.

Maybe someone with a lower profile might be able to get papers on XMRV published more easily, so I hope that Dr Lombardi has more success.

From XMRV Buzz

I didn't make or think that up...I got that from Dr. Mikovits...She left because they couldnt get grants or their papers published...

I think she let it get personal and that hurt them and us badly. THey were a new lab with a controversial finding about a controversial disease; they had a big target on their back - if they had kept their head down and been humble - all the while working furiously behind the scenes to prove their finding - that would have helped alot - and I think they would have gotten help. Instead Dr. Mikovits started telling researchers they didn't know how to do PCR or didn't want to find XMRV... I jut think that was a big mistake in 'strategy' I'm very conservative in that area.

Annette certainly kept her head down and so did Dr. Lombardi and the Vice President....

He will be less exciting and less of a cheerleader but I think that's what the research community is looking for in that position...

I don't think my opinions should really be a surprise. I've been rather open about this for a long time and I do feel quite strongly about it. Again, it was Dr. Mikovits who said she was changing positions because the Research Director position had not worked out.

I really don't know how to deal with the Dr. Towers thing...I can't control what some body else says. I can tell you (and have told you ) that I have never communicated in any way with Dr. Towers. The only researchers I have talked to at length have been Dusty Miller and Dr. Satterfield. I've never talked to anyone from the UK.

I think where I stand on XMRV is pretty clear too. If I had to bet I would not bet on it but I do recognize that the while most of the evidence is not good right now...that the negative evidence is mostly circumstantial and the real test will come with the BWG and Levy and SIngh and Lipkin and other studies that come out this summer. Those will tell the tale - and everything could turn around.

Cort does seem to have strong views on this, but the WPI themselves have said that Judy's old position was not currently working for the WPI. And I think that the WPI have implied that Dr Lombardi might have more success with getting the basic research published.

So in some ways, unless I'm interpreting what they've said incorrectly, the WPI have themselves implied that this may partly be a personality issue, unless Dr Lombardi is not going to pursue any further XMRV research, and is only going to pursue other research.

Don't get me wrong though... I'm a huge Judy Mikovits fan...
I think that Judy has approached things in her own way and in her own style. Whether that was the best way or not is probably purely a matter of opinion, as we don't know how the XMRV research would have evolved without Judy, except that I'm sure no one would have found a connection between XMRV and CFS for many many years; possibly decades. So without her, there would not yet be a XMRV-CFS connection.

And I don't want to downplay the politics that is clearly at play here, which is clearly huge and deeply worrying.

But, yes, Judy is clearly moving forwards with her XMRV research and it looks like she is going to push for medical trials.

I think it's basic to research that people understand the rules of the game so their research doesn't get steamrolled for no reason. I feel that wise researchers know how to play the system. I must say, however, that if the NIH is denying money to Mikovits for not playing the game right, then they are being petty and unprofessional. They are denying important research just to get back at someone who ruffled their feathers.

Anyway, I think this is a smart move for Mikovits. I don't think pharmaceutical companies get their feelings hurt so easily, and Mikovits can focus on the translational aspects now.

Not all - the irony is that there's no problems with the research. They did good enough research to get into Science and Dr. Mikovits has a very strong research background - much stronger than Dr. Lombardi. Based on her experience and her connections I would much rather have DR. Mikovits leading the research section than Dr. Lombardi...

The research stands just fine.