The 12th Invest in ME Research Conference June, 2017, Part 2
MEMum presents the second article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Ruscetti Acknowledges Resuse of WB Image 2

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by joshualevy, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. omegaman


    Isn't it being reported that not all of the ONLY 15 patient samples in the blood working group study were actually tested at the WPI/Mikovits. I'm hearing some of the samples were tested at Vipdx . Mikovits does not and has not fealt comfortable with the Vipdx testign accuracy. So is the issue that the Vipdx testing is not accurate but the WPI testing was? It seems at least a possiblity? Also only 15 samples? That does not provide much power. An how many of those 15 were tested at the WPI and how many at Vipdx? I'm hoping the Lipkin study proceeds and can sort out the mess.
  2. asleep

    asleep Senior Member

    From the NatureNews article: "This is the problem of people trying to interpret lab jargon," says Ruscetti.

    What we've seen over the past couple days is speculation about motive and intention, resulting in unambiguous accusations of fraud. Given how little information we know and how little context we have, these claims being made by ERV, Lee, joshualevy and others are prime examples of a fundamental attribution error.

    Character assassination works by discounting the the situational, circumstantial, and unknown aspects of behavior in favor of speculative explanations about motive. I hope people see what is going on here.
  3. Dreambirdie

    Dreambirdie work in progress

    N. California
    Thanks Wayne. I agree with most of what you have said. I am grateful for the work the WPI and Judy Mikovitz have done on our behalf, though I am still a bit shocked at Annette Whittemore for firing Judy. I can understand that they have had some serious differences, but why couldn't those be worked out in mediation or even in a few therapy sessions with a really good facilitator?

    It's clear that being involved in "controversial" research is very stressful and that can reek havoc on people's emotions. Every one of us is just human after all, and humans tend to be a rather egotistical and self-righteous species. When things get heated, it's easy to overreact and resort to extremes measures, and firing the most devoted ME/CFS researcher we've ever had qualifies as such in my mind.

    My wish is that both Annette and Judy chill out, take some time to assess the situation from a calmer place, go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make things work. It probably won't happen, of course, but wouldn't it be great if people in the scientific community actually learned how to listen to each other and work out their issues from a broader perspective. Really, wouldn't it?

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page