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!
The Mighty Egg: New Life Springs Forth Despite ME/CFS
Jody Smith finds that even with ME/CFS, new life as symbolized by the mighty egg, can still spring forth ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Nature: Lombardi XMRV Paper Retracted in Full

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Firestormm, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. adreno

    adreno 3% neanderthal

    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes:
    1,337
    Tundras of Europa
    It's very uncommon, but it happens. Usually because of discovered fraud, or simply because of bad science (as this one seems to be).
  2. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1636.1.full

    Science 23 December 2011:
    Vol. 334 no. 6063 p. 1636
    DOI: 10.1126/science.334.6063.1636-a

    Letters

    Retraction

    Science is fully retracting the report detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (1). Multiple laboratories, including those of the original authors (2), have failed to reliably detect xenotropic murine leukemia virusrelated virus (XMRV) or other murine leukemia virus (MLV )related viruses in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients. In addition, there is evidence of poor quality control in a number of specific experiments in the Report. Figure 1, table S1, and fig. S2 have been retracted by the authors (3). In response to concerns expressed about Fig. 2C [summarized in (4)], the authors acknowledged to Science that they omitted important information from the legend of this figure panel. Specifically, they failed to indicate that the CFS patientderived peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) shown in Fig. 2C had been treated with azacytidine as well as phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2. This was in contrast to the CFS samples shown in Figs. 2A and 2B, which had not been treated with azacytidine.

    Given all of these issues, Science has lost confidence in the Report and the validity of its conclusions. We note that the majority of the authors have agreed in principle to retract the Report but they have been unable to agree on the wording of their statement. It is Science's opinion that a retraction signed by all the authors is unlikely to be forthcoming. We are therefore editorially retracting the Report. We regret the time and resources that the scientific community has devoted to unsuccessful attempts to replicate these results.

    Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief


    References

    1 V. C. Lombardi et al., Science 326, 585 (2009); 10.1126/science.1179052. Abstract/FREE Full Text
    2 G. Simmons et al., Science 334, 814 (2011); 10.1126/science.1213841. Abstract/FREE Full Text
    3 R. H. Silverman et al., Science 334, 176 (2011); 10.1126/science.1212182. FREE Full Text
    4 J. Cohen, ScienceInsider (4 October 2011); http://scim.ag/_Mikovits.
    Tony Mach and barbc56 like this.
  3. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    773
    Why are the WPI pursuing a prolonged and expensive legal action against Dr Mikovits for the recovery and rights to her research and notebooks if this research is valueless....?

    kurt likes this.
  4. markmc20001

    markmc20001 Guest

    Messages:
    877
    Likes:
    80
    How is anybody going to ever be able to replicate the original science paper assays now that the original science paper has been retracted? :eek:
    kurt likes this.
  5. Advocate

    Advocate Senior Member

    Messages:
    506
    Likes:
    14
    U.S.A.
    anne_likes_red and Jemal like this.
  6. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Nice find Advocate. I guess it all comes down to Lipkin. I hope he is as sincere as he sounds.
  7. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes:
    3,605
    Ontario, Canada
    Lipkin said:
    Exactly.
  8. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes:
    4,271
    When will false claims about CBT restoring function be retracted?

    Here is a comparison to consider.

    CFS is diagnosed subjectively but we know according to objective actigraphical measurements the levels of activity are substantially reduced. CBT psychobabblers have claimed CBT recovers the health of a significant proportion of CFS patients both in terms of symptoms and functional impairments, based on subjective measures. However, improvements reported on subjective measures may be "contaminated" by reactivity bias, a possibility accepted by researchers when studying other diseases but ignored when studying CFS. Even then the reported benefits are small and short term.

    No one has found objective evidence that CBT is leading to restoration of previous activity levels as presumed for CFS. Objective measurements using actigraphy have instead shown no such recoveries or any improvement whatsoever on average. This data was omitted from the original publications of these studies. Will the claims about full recoveries in terms of function now be retracted?

    Suspiciously coinciding with this data, the PACE Trial designed by hardcore CBT proponents with their reputations on the line, dropped the use of actigraphy as an outcome measurement and dropped its original (subjective) primary outcome measurements for dubious post-hoc analyses with weaker goalposts for "improvement" and getting back to "normal", which contradicted what is usually considered an improvement and normal even by some of the same authors and/or colleagues in previous publications. The best example, what was defined as "normal" physical function allowed entry into the trial for having "significant disability", and was also labeled "severe disability" in a previous paper co-authored by one of the PACE editorial authors who is now calling it "healthy".

    Despite demonstrating previous competence with all the figures involved, the PACE authors and editorial authors somehow "accidentally" mislabeled the physical function normative dataset (used to derived "normal" physical function) as a "working age population" and "healthy" when it was actually a general population which included elderly and diseased. Labeling 60/100 points on the physical function subscale of the SF-36 health survey as "normal" or "healthy" for the patients studied is scandalous when about 84% of healthy people of similar age are scoring at least 80/100 or more.

    Allowing a participant to make no improvement during the trial and then be classified at the end of the trial as "normal" is also extremely questionable under these circumstances. The closest to an objective outcome, the 6 minute walking test distance does not back up these claims of getting back to normal, for CBT there was no improvement at all on average compared to the de facto control group and remains similar to dozens of serious diseases. There are several more such problems in the PACE Trial and CBT research in general, and claims of recoveries are still being bandied around in medical journals and newspapers as a result. At what point does spin doctoring became scientific fraud?

    ERV et al's treatment for pointing out discrepancies in XMRV and other biological research: News coverage, groupie praise for fighting the good fight against bad science and quackery.

    Our treatment for pointing out discrepancies in CBT and other psychological research: Hand waving dismissal, contemptuous laughter, branded as irrational extremists amongst criminals, and "f*ck off you stupid angry c*nts, just accept the obvious truth about your (fake) psycho>somatic illness!"
  9. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes:
    4,271
    In other words, Mikovits accepts the Lipkin study is the final word.
    Tony Mach likes this.
  10. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    175
    USA.Earth
    For whatever reason, retractions are becoming far more common the last few years. See:

    http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/08/retractions-of-scientific-studies-are-surging/

    According to the above report, retractions have increased by 15x in the past decade. Clearly the top journals are becoming more sensitive to the scientific validity of what they publish.
  11. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes:
    1,822
    Well said, biophile. :thumbsup:
  12. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    773
  13. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes:
    1,582
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    And many of them have become the secretive publishing/endorsing arm of the phrama and other corporate interests.
    See how many are owned by such, and by whom....

    The more Science has to do with money and power, the more corrupt it gets. IT IS INEVITABLE.
    Science is not some "remote, perfect god-being", the Scienctific Method is valid, but "science" is about Human Beings, not facts, like it or not.
    History proves this. Recent history doesn't merely underline this, but damns us all:
    gene patenting; vast numbers of labs working with incredibly dangerous pathogens; oversight groups linked to commercial interests, etc.
    Lou likes this.
  14. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    The study might be retracted, but it did bring us a lot of attention. A lot of negative attention of course, but it also brought aboard people that would normally not look into ME/CFS. And some of them are still aboard. So all in all I am still pleased.
    Lou, Firestormm and wdb like this.
  15. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes:
    4,271
    Also from the other forum, I found these comments interesting.

  16. Firestormm

    Firestormm Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,965
    Cornwall England
    It would appear that Lipkin remains convinced his study should continue:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/h...acts-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-paper.html?_r=1

    Dr. Lipkin, who is also the director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia, said he believed the retraction was premature.

    In my view, the investigation should be allowed to proceed while we sort out whats real and not real, Dr. Lipkin said. Those with the illness, he added, are a group of people who have had their hopes dashed more than once, and they deserve a full hearing of the data.

    And that results, according to Mikovits are due in March 2012 - can't remember where I read that now - will add a linky when I do.

    Silverman seems to think retraction was the right thing to do:

    'One of the authors who noted the problems with the work, Robert Silverman, said in a statement today that he was in favor of a full retraction at the time the contamination was discovered. He said he was pleased that Science has now retracted the paper.'

    http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/12/22/science-retracts-paper-on-xmrv-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-link/


    'Others online viewed the retraction as part of a large, complex conspiracy theory against CFS patients. "We know the truth, and so do they," wrote one commenter on mecfsforums.com, an online patient community. "That's what (they're) afraid of."' :rolleyes:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rnal-retraction-1223-20111223,0,3218007.story
  17. Megan

    Megan Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes:
    13
    Australia
    I find it bizarre that Silverman retracted his part of the Science paper, and now the whole paper is retracted, but the original Urisman et al paper that identified XMRV the first time (in prostate cancer) still stands. Wasnt Silvermans work integral to that?

    As far as I can tell, the Paprotka paper is the strongest evidence against XMRV, and applies equally to the prostate cancer papers. Odd also that the Science editors forgot that one in their reasons for retraction.
    currer, Snow Leopard and Mark like this.
  18. Daffodil

    Daffodil Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes:
    750
    wonko lol well put.

    why would they retract the paper now, knowing the lipkin results will be out in 2 months?? why not wait to make sure you dont end up with egg on your face? do they know something we dont?
  19. Firestormm

    Firestormm Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,965
    Cornwall England
    I think the strongest paper against XMRV (in CFS patients) is Lombardi et al. And that's what this retraction and the reasons for it are about. The 'association' and the results could not be replicated.

    If there is something - a retrovirus - other than (but perhaps associated with) XMRV in CFS patients (which I doubt) then they should publish a paper.

    I believe (can't give any links at the moment) that the XMRV in prostate cancer paper findings were being reviewed (if only perhaps in light of the contamination issues that have arisen out of all this).

    Might even be considered less reliable now. Pretty sure there were some statements to this effect not so long ago. Will have to have a think.

    Edit:

    Referred above to Mikovits saying that the Lipkin study looking for XMRV (MLVs?) would be complete in March. Science Insider of course quotes within two months:

    'Mikovits and Ruscetti are currently taking part in a multilab study coordinated by pathogen sleuth Ian Lipkin at Columbia University in New York City that will look for XMRV and related viruses in many more CFS patients than were analyzed in the Blood Working Group study.

    Mikovits says this $2.3 million study, funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also factored in to the decision not to sign the full retraction.

    "We think it's premature to do anything before it's complete," says Mikovits, who estimates they will have results within 2 months. ''

    Alberts strongly disagrees. "I think they should cancel that study," says Alberts. "It's over. They can't do the assays, so what's the point? Why should that give any different result than the blood group study? Maybe us retracting will help them scale back how much money they've spent on that. It seems like an incredible waste."'

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/in-a-rare-move-science-without-a.html


    There we go:

    '...are expected by March.

    Dr. Mikovits said in a telephone interview that she remained confident of retroviral involvement in chronic fatigue syndrome and believed that any retraction should have waited until the N.I.H. study was completed.

    That will be the definitive answer, she said. If were wrong and we cant reproduce it, then well be wrong, and thats how science works. '

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/h...acts-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-paper.html?_r=1

    A more complete statement from Silverman:

    'I requested a full retraction of our findings this summer after discovering that the blood samples were contaminated. I was in favor of a retraction of the entire paper at that time. I am pleased to see that the Journal has now granted a retraction of the entire paper, and I agree with that decision.'

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/in-a-rare-move-science-without-a.html?ref=hp
  20. markmc20001

    markmc20001 Guest

    Messages:
    877
    Likes:
    80
    Nobody tried to "replicate" the exact same assays. The annealing temperatures for one were different. AND they were looking for a clone, not the real virus isolated by Mikovitz. Of course nobody can look that up now, because it is retracted.

    When propaganda fails, they start to use force. I see how the game works.

    In the world of science, in case people here don't know (which I'm sure many do) more information is better. Can never have too much information when trying to solve problems .

    Even if an experiment comes out wrong, something can be learned. It rules out a line of thinking if nothing else. Especially since HGRV's are found in prostrate cancer too.

    THe only reason to "retract" the Lombardi study is if they are hiding something from future students and scientists.

    No doubt some scientist will want to reference that Lombardi study and will not be able to, because it is no longer published. How in the heck does that advance the cause into ME research? It doesn't. it obfuscates the research more. Not like research is obfuscated enough with all the CBT and GET and psycho-babble out there.

    Leave it published. More information is better, IF everybody was really trying to advance science.


    Mark

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page