Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
Science retraction letter: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1636.1.full?sid=929852b1-bdb7-49d2-8c9a-e827af9882d1
'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 S2 have been retracted by the authors (3).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 Sciences 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
References
1. V. C. Lombardi et al., Science 326, 585 (2009); 10.1126/science.1179052.
2. G. Simmons et al., Science 334, 814 (2011); 10.1126/science.1213841.
3. R. H. Silverman et al., Science 334, 176 (2011); 10.1126/science.1212182.
4. J. Cohen, ScienceInsider (4 October 2011); http://scim.ag/_Mikovits.
'...Alberts says the Blood Working Group finding was the final straw that led Science to request the full retraction. "The blood group study to me was dramatic evidence of poor science," says Alberts. "It gave us absolutely no confidence in the ability of the major labs involved to do the assays. I find that enormously disturbing."
NCI's Francis Ruscetti, a prominent retrovirologist and one of the co-authors, attempted to coordinate a retraction with his colleagues but a dispute arose over wording that suggested some of the findings in the original paper were still valid.
"We tried to get all of the authors to agree, but it got endless," says Alberts. "The responsibility that Science magazine has to the scientific community is to make a strong statement that we don't think anything in that paper can be relied on."
WPI's Judy Mikovits, who led the study with Ruscetti, says she and two of her contributing lab assistants refused to sign the retraction...
"We were confident of our data," Mikovits told ScienceInsider, explaining why they wanted to include a line in the retraction that said they still trusted their data and conclusions. Ruscetti refused to comment about the full retraction...'
Paper co-author Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University sent this statement to ScienceInsider:
'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.'
Cohen: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/in-a-rare-move-science-without-a.html?ref=hp
Lombardi et al 2009 has been retracted. Lombardi. Any other findings, any resulting theories will require a new paper. I sometimes feel - reading blogs and comments etc. - that people seem to think this retraction is marking an end to any further research. That it somehow says 'there ain't no possibility of any retroviruses' or something.
From my point of view all of this past two years has ever been about the Lombardi paper and speculations arising thereof. If there is something else, something not revealed in Lombardi - a related variant or whatever - then it will need a new paper.
Lombardi with all its' problems and with the lack of RESULT replication was deemed unworthy. Hell even the authors were considering retraction, were even in agreement to retract - they just took forever to come up with the words and so Alberts took the decision from them. They had had long enough.
'Alberts says they simply had been "spun" by the authors too many times for too long. "If our editorial retraction helps to end the resources to go into this fruitless endeavor, I think we've made a contribution to the scientific community," he says. '
Lombardi was about XMRV being strongly associated with CFS patients' blood. XMRV. And it didn't pan out. It was useful. It certainly seems to have heightened concerns and revealed the widespread nature of contamination. But Lombardi et al didn't stand up the scrutiny - even by its' own authors.
'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 Sciences 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
References
1. V. C. Lombardi et al., Science 326, 585 (2009); 10.1126/science.1179052.
2. G. Simmons et al., Science 334, 814 (2011); 10.1126/science.1213841.
3. R. H. Silverman et al., Science 334, 176 (2011); 10.1126/science.1212182.
4. J. Cohen, ScienceInsider (4 October 2011); http://scim.ag/_Mikovits.
'...Alberts says the Blood Working Group finding was the final straw that led Science to request the full retraction. "The blood group study to me was dramatic evidence of poor science," says Alberts. "It gave us absolutely no confidence in the ability of the major labs involved to do the assays. I find that enormously disturbing."
NCI's Francis Ruscetti, a prominent retrovirologist and one of the co-authors, attempted to coordinate a retraction with his colleagues but a dispute arose over wording that suggested some of the findings in the original paper were still valid.
"We tried to get all of the authors to agree, but it got endless," says Alberts. "The responsibility that Science magazine has to the scientific community is to make a strong statement that we don't think anything in that paper can be relied on."
WPI's Judy Mikovits, who led the study with Ruscetti, says she and two of her contributing lab assistants refused to sign the retraction...
"We were confident of our data," Mikovits told ScienceInsider, explaining why they wanted to include a line in the retraction that said they still trusted their data and conclusions. Ruscetti refused to comment about the full retraction...'
Paper co-author Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University sent this statement to ScienceInsider:
'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.'
Cohen: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/in-a-rare-move-science-without-a.html?ref=hp
Lombardi et al 2009 has been retracted. Lombardi. Any other findings, any resulting theories will require a new paper. I sometimes feel - reading blogs and comments etc. - that people seem to think this retraction is marking an end to any further research. That it somehow says 'there ain't no possibility of any retroviruses' or something.
From my point of view all of this past two years has ever been about the Lombardi paper and speculations arising thereof. If there is something else, something not revealed in Lombardi - a related variant or whatever - then it will need a new paper.
Lombardi with all its' problems and with the lack of RESULT replication was deemed unworthy. Hell even the authors were considering retraction, were even in agreement to retract - they just took forever to come up with the words and so Alberts took the decision from them. They had had long enough.
'Alberts says they simply had been "spun" by the authors too many times for too long. "If our editorial retraction helps to end the resources to go into this fruitless endeavor, I think we've made a contribution to the scientific community," he says. '
Lombardi was about XMRV being strongly associated with CFS patients' blood. XMRV. And it didn't pan out. It was useful. It certainly seems to have heightened concerns and revealed the widespread nature of contamination. But Lombardi et al didn't stand up the scrutiny - even by its' own authors.