You can view the page at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?523-Lo-Alter-Retract-MLV-Paper-on-CFS
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Dr Mikovits on her work with Lipkin:
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way ):
'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
ME patients do not quote ERV - thought you should know that. She believes in a psychiatric cause for ME.
Does she really? I haven't gotten that by reading her (I do spot read her though). She can be so aggressive that she courts hostility and I guess its possible that she's concluded we're all a bunch of fruitcakes. She is snarky for sure and has been a strong critic of XMRV and Dr. Mikovits from the beginning. I wrote her an email suggesting that maybe she needed to see a therapist given her incredible hostility but there's no denying she's smart. Dusty Miller took a look at some of her blogs and said she was right on - on the facts. She's a tough one to deal with though - I definitely acknowledge that.
Dr Mikovits on her work with Lipkin:
'I am committed to moving forward this work and am working as the PI on the Lipkin study according to the original study design and we are confident that no matter what the results with MRVs, this study will move the field forward...'
28 December 2011: http://lymebook.com/vogan-blog/?p=130
Last chance saloon (in terms of trying to verify the original methodology in Lombardi et al. and this being the only funded study in town at present).
On the 'they looked and couldn't find contamination' front, well this one had some scientists perplexed at the time. I see Prof Racaniello is still perplexed by the claim reiterated in the retraction notice:
'The retraction of the Lo-Alter PNAS paper curiously begins with the assertion that the authors could not detect contaminating mouse DNA in their samples which was most certainly present and lead to their detection of MLV-like sequences.
''Although our published findings were reproducible in our laboratory and while there has been no evidence of contamination using sensitive mouse mitochondrial DNA or IAP assays or in testing coded panels''
This failure remains puzzling and unexplained; but as they report in the next paragraph, they appear to have run out of material to distribute to other laboratories for independent confirmation.'
http://www.virology.ws/2011/12/26/a...mia-virus-releated-sequences-in-cfs-patients/
ERV at the time of publication went so far as to say (in her own 'snarky; way ):
'Okay, well, logically it could be contamination from mouse DNA. So they checked for that... by looking for mouse mitochondrial DNA.
*blink*
I understand why they did it-- mitochondrial DNA is easier to find than genomic DNA, because there are more mitochondria in a cell than genome. But you kinda need to look for mouse genomic DNA contamination when one of your phyologenetic trees has your 'viral sequences' so closely related to mouse ERVs on four different chromosomes that it doesnt even form a proper branch.
Cause ERVs are in genomes. Not mitochondrial DNA.'
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_16.php
Gods know what the 'answer' (assuming there is one) actually is - but perhaps they didn't look hard enough or indeed ran out of samples with which to look hard enough?!
I wrote her an email suggesting that maybe she needed to see a therapist given her incredible hostility but there's no denying she's smart.
Furthermore, she needs to at least be agnostic about God as no one can prove or disprove the original cause of the universe. Atheism as a religion is not so smart. I could write more. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"? It certainly is not that God is defined by the contents of a human cell. Galileo was a smart guy, so is Mikovits. Neither are atheists. I can only add that I am so glad I am not ERV's mother.
Atheism is not a religion any more that not collecting stamps is a hobby or being bald is a haircut.
Your assertion that Atheism is not smart is not supported by evidence
If you are only gong to respect the opinions of scientists who have the same religious beliefs a yourself then that is a very small fraction.
Furthermore, she needs to at least be agnostic about God as no one can prove or disprove the original cause of the universe. Atheism as a religion is not so smart.
I think GoWest meant to say "atheism as a doctrine".
It is a fair comment to suggest that a dogmatic and agressive belief in atheism narrows the mind.
It is a fair comment to suggest that a dogmatic and agressive belief in anything narrows the mind.
I'm confused what the context of this talk of atheism as a religion is anyway, did ERV or someone mention it somewhere that I missed ?
Cort~ Do you have a link to Lo/Alter's retraction?
Thanks,
Timaca