Done reading PLAGUE by Dr. Judy Mikovits

[RustyJ]

Are you aware, @Countrygirl, of Montagnier's reputation? This article might fill you in.

The author seems to be ranting. Has innate fear of anything that challenges the establishment.

The quantum nature of DNA sounds interesting. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be used to explain shared feelings quite easily, particularly in twins.

I get the feeling the author would condemn Heisenberg.

 

[Hip]

Thank goodness we do have some scientists who are prepared to break away from the herd, and risk their reputations to promote a safer vaccine programme.

If as a scientist you were interested in promoting a safer vaccine program, given that this is a very controversial area, the best thing you could do would be to make sure your own reputation is a very solid one. So for example, if as a scientist you want to go into vaccine safety, then steer well clear of controversial or quack areas such as AIDS denialism, homeopathy, or publishing papers claiming that DNA can teleport from one place to another.

In controversial areas such as vaccine safety, it is particularly important for a scientist to remain sound and rational, and to work very hard to gather good, solid evidence to back up their statements.

If you don't, then people will view your work on vaccine safety through the lens of all your other controversial and quack interests, and likely conclude that your vaccine safety research is also quackery or pseudoscience. So if anything, by having many other quack or fringe interests, you would damage the field of vaccine safety, and also you will tend to stop good scientists from joining the field, because nobody wants to tarnish their own reputation by being seen with a bunch of pseudoscience lovers.

I think he is also in his 80s and needs to be cut some slack, perhaps.

It's not unusual for very sharp-minded scientists to become a bit woolly-thinking in their dotage and get involved in lots of crazy stuff. It's almost an occupational hazard. Well, it's a hazard for all of us, but it looks particularly bad when it happens to a scientist who once had a brilliantly sharp mind and outstanding critical thinking faculties.

The problem though is that the public may judge the statements these scientists make in their latter years on the basis of the reputation they held when they were at the peek of their mental abilities, in their twenties or thirties say. So you must judge them for what they are saying and doing now, not what they did 50 years ago.

Note though many scientists do remain sober and well-rooted to the last. Charles Darwin, for example, produced a sound and rational scientific output right to the end of his life.

 

[Wally]

Note though many scientists do remain sober and well-rooted to the last. Charles Darwin, for example, produced a sound and rational scientific output right to the end of his life.

Charles Darwin passed away at age 73 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Voyage_of_the_Beagle). So it would have been interesting to see where his scientific thought process would have taken him if he had lived into his eighties or longer.

Luc Montagnier is currently 82 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier).

It would also be interesting to study scientists to see if advancing age and/or neuro related illnesses cause them to lose their footing in sound scientific reasoning or perhaps in some cases these changes might allow them to view the world in new and enlightened ways.

 

[Hip]

It would also be interesting to study scientists to see if advancing age and/or neuro related illnesses cause them to lose their footing in sound scientific reasoning or perhaps in some cases these changes might allow them to view the world in new and enlightened ways.

Well certainly among mathematicians, you get individuals with anything from odd behavioral characteristics to (much more rarely) outright mental illness; and you get the impression that such touches of madness may well be part of the driving force behind the brilliant insights and solutions these minds come up with.

Some of my favorite mathematicians descended into madness, but made truly incredible mathematical discoveries en route.

However, a touch of madness as the spark of genius is one thing; but scientists descending into mystical mumbo jumbo and magical thinking in their twilight years is quite another. It seems to me that the latter is not brilliance of mind, but rather just losing the plot.

 

[Wally]

Well certainly among mathematicians, you get individuals with anything from odd behavioral characteristics to (much more rarely) outright mental illness; and you get the impression that such touches of madness may well be part of the driving force behind the brilliant insights and solutions these minds come up with.

Some of my favorite mathematicians descended into madness, but made truly incredible mathematical discoveries en route.

@Hip,
Unfortunately, I believe some mathematicians (and scientists) are driven to madness by living in a world where math skills are not considered essential life skills. I am sure that my own creative accounting skills have driven a few math wizards in my own family a bit bonkers.

So sorry for my part in taking this thread off track, but it is Saturday night and I could not resist throwing in a little levity into my post.

Now back to the discussion about Judy Mikovitz and her book "Plague".

 

[Countrygirl]

http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/judy-mikovits-phd-leading-the-charge-into-medicines-holy-war/

This the link to the recording of Judy's interview from last week, In it she reveals something she told us last time she visited here: she too is infected by the retrovirus that she found in our blood,

The tab is near the top left corner.

 

[wastwater]

I liked the chapter: ME/CFS and Autism in the medical literature,and the bit about the los angeles county general hospital payout

 

[vli]

the bit about the los angeles county general hospital payout

Yes I must say I found this part particularly interesting as well (if someone'd write it... it looks like it deserves a book of its own).

 

[Wally]

I came here to post about a recent podcast of an interview with Judy Mikovitz regarding her book "Plague" and I was so saddened to see that the last posting in this thread was by Vanessa.

It is my hope that in posting this new podcast it provides our community the opportunity to access Judy Mikovitz sharing her perspective and personal experiences with ME/CFS research in a manner that may be more accessible to patients. There have been several other podcast interviews that have been conducted in the last month or so, but so far the interview/podcast linked below has provided me with the best understanding about the events Judy Mikovitz (and Kent Heckenlively) have written about in the book the "Plague".

I hope that by making this post, it will be welcomed in the spirit of sharing information among our patient community that I have found helpful in my own quest to understand the history surrounding XMRV. In this vein, I have listened to all the podcasts and videos that I have been able to find online regarding this topic and I also have read Judy and Kent's book.

For me, I did find some of the science based information in the book difficult to follow, both from a cognitive standpoint and also because I have a limited educational background in science. However, as a patient with this illness who watched the XMRV saga unfold, it has been important for me to try to educate myself about the science and to try to understand the history surrounding this topic from many different sources, including but not limited to Judy Mikovitz.

Well I realize some people may not be interested in purchasing and reading "Plague", I believe that these free podcasts provide an opportunity for patients to gather information that may give some new insights into the history of this illness much in the way that Hillary Johnson did in her book, Osler's Web. Whether you agree or disagree with what information is provided in these books, I think it is important that we share where people can access additional information about these subjects and we remain open to sharing divergent views and opinions about this illness.

Here is the newest podcast/interview with Judy Mikovitz that I have been able to find online and the one that I found to be the easiest for me to follow. However, it should be noted that the interview is quite lengthy (Part 1 is 45 minutes and Part 2 is 39 minutes), but you can start and stop the podcast to listen/relisten to it at your own speed. The podcast can be accessed here - http://www.drcourtneycraig.com/podcast/

As to Vanessa's point raised in the prior post regarding the 1930's cluster outbreak at the City of Los Angeles Hospital, it also seems to me that there still remain lots of reasons for the historical facts (or lack thereof) surrounding this illness to continue to be discussed and questioned by the ME/CFS community.

 

[beaker]

Here is the newest podcast/interview with Judy Mikovitz that I have been able to find online and the one that I found to be the easiest for me to follow. However, it should be noted that the interview is quite lengthy (Part 1 is 45 minutes and Part 2 is 39 minutes), but you can start and stop the podcast to listen/relisten to it at your own speed. The podcast can be accessed here - http://www.drcourtneycraig.com/podcast/

.

Thank you Wally.
I haven't bought the book, b/c I have a stack of books here that I just cannot read, but want to. ( cognitive )
Hoping this podcast gives me a good overview and taste of the book.

 

[Dufresne]

I just finished listening to Dr Craig's podcast and I enjoyed it. Pissed me right off!

I didn't know Lipkin had found evidence of retrovirus in 85% of Montoya’s samples? I just had no idea it was that great a percentage. I know he’s used this deep sequencing for some time, discovering all sorts of new viruses that can infect humans. Has he ever mentioned these retroviruses as being present in the blood of others? If that were the case I suspect he would have said so rather then "but I don't think this will pan out." I think it’s especially conspicuous it lines up with the number reported in Alter’s paper. And they made the point of stating the viruses they were finding weren't Silverman's XMRV. Was that study ever discredited? She talks about Alter’s work at 30:30 but doesn’t clearly state what happened to that work, just that the science was corrupted. Does anybody know?

 

[Kati]

I just finished listening to Dr Craig's podcast and I enjoyed it. Pissed me right off!

I didn't know Lipkin had found evidence of retrovirus in 85% of Montoya’s samples? I just had no idea it was that great a percentage. I know he’s used this deep sequencing for some time, discovering all sorts of new viruses that can infect humans. Has he ever mentioned these retroviruses as being present in the blood of others? If that were the case I suspect he would have said so rather then "but I don't think this will pan out." I think it’s especially conspicuous it lines up with the number reported in Alter’s paper. And they made the point of stating the viruses they were finding weren't Silverman's XMRV. Was that study ever discredited? She talks about Alter’s work at 30:30 but doesn’t clearly state what happened to that work, just that the science was corrupted. Does anybody know?

Lipkin also found retro viral sequences in the healthy controls at about the same rate as the patients with ME therefore it was not considered significant.

 

[Bob]

Lipkin found the same level of retrovirus in patients and controls, so the significance of his finding isn't certain. (e.g. it could be contamination.) Judy Mikovits argues that, if an unknown retrovirus is widespread within the population, it could be causing disease in a subset of the population (e.g. ME patients), in which case you'd expect to find the virus in a large proportion of patients and healthy controls. But even in that scenario, you might expect to find the retrovirus in a higher proportion of the patient samples. I can't help feeling that it's wishful thinking to expect Lipkin's results to lead us to Judy's and DeFreitus' retroviruses.

I wouldn't rule out Lipkin quietly investigating it further (after all, he hunts viruses as a career, so why wouldn't he run a few extra tests to see what he's detected?), but only making a fuss about it if he gets definite proof that he's found something significant. If he's learned anything about retroviruses, from the treatment of Judy, it's to keep your head below the parapet until you've got incontrovertible and substantial evidence about what you think you've discovered. And even then tread carefully.

 

[beaker]

I wouldn't rule out Lipkin quietly investigating it further (after all, he hunts viruses as a career, so why wouldn't he run a few extra tests to see what he's detected?) but only making a fuss about it if he gets definite proof that he's found something significant. If he's learned anything about retroviruses, from the treatment of Judy, it's to keep your head below the parapet until you've got incontrovertible and substantial evidence about what you think you've discovered.

I think that would be true about finding anything. He's not going to say much until he can publish. Lessons learned.

 

[Seven7]

What I remember of that presentation he said IL said that he found the RV in samples and that he didn't know what it meant, I might be wrong but my personal impression was that it meant nothing or I didn't get the impression he would pursue it at all.

If anybody interviews him please ask. I have the feeling this is very important and is been overlooked.

 

[Dufresne]

So should we conclude these retroviruses might be in 85%, and not just 6%, of the population?

Were the conclusions of Alter's paper eventually proved to be the result of contamination? I think I remember him stating he believed that to be the case.

 

[Isamu]

Authors note on the retraction (Alter/Lo) paper:

"The authors wish to note the following: “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"

They were pressured into retracting because they were the only ones who confirmed the Science paper findings. The problem was because of the Silverman error in figure 1. The wrong sequence was reported in that figure. Instead of the gammaretrovirus that was found.

Look at the sample 1118 of the Science paper figure 1, it's negative pcr for XMRV. Then look at figure 2, 1118 shows serology positive to SFFV which finds exogenous gammaretroviruses.

 

[Countrygirl]

Below are extracts from a new article on Dr Judy Mikovits following her presentation in London:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/dr...info-advisory-board-welcome-revolution?page=2

Dr. Judy Mikovits Joins GreenMedInfo Advisory Board – Welcome to the Revolution!
20


Posted on: Tuesday, March 10th 2015 at 9:30 pm

Dr. Judy Mikovits Joins GreenMedInfo Advisory Board – Welcome to the Revolution!

The moment an oppressive system begins to fail is when it loses the support of its best and brightest minds. It is for this reason that we so proudly welcome Dr. Judy Mikovits to the Advisory Board of GreenMedInfo. In a different time, the background, character, and publications of Dr. Mikovits would have put her on the fast-track to head one of our most prestigious public health entities, whether that be the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, or even the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Mikovits earned her BA from the University of Virginia and her PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology from George Washington University and started her research career in the lab of legendary retrovirology researcher, Dr. Frank Ruscetti, who along with Bernie Poiesz and Robert Gallo, isolated the first human retrovirus, HTLV-1. As a post-doc, Mikovits helped create the first infectious molecular clone of that retrovirus. She rose from being an entry-level lab technician to become director of the Lab of Antiviral Drug Mechanisms at the National Cancer Institute before leaving to direct the Cancer Biology program at EpiGenX Pharmaceuticals in Santa Barbara, CA. Dr. Mikovits has published more than 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and before she entered the chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) world, her work had never been questioned.

In 2009 she shocked the scientific world by publishing evidence that a recently discovered retrovirus, XMRV, (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) was found in 67% of a well-defined chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) population and only 3.7% of healthy controls. This research was later confirmed by Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo of the Food and Drug Administration of Dr. Harvey Alter of the National Institutes of Health. The findings of Lo and Alter were of a wider group of murine leukemia viruses which included XMRV, but the results were even more robust. In a different chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) group the rate of infection by these viruses was 86% and 6.6% among healthy controls.

In a different time, in a better world, these results would have been celebrated, and great efforts would have been expended trying to find how to help these patients. Instead of jubilation, the response of much of the scientific community was to attack her findings. In a discipline which prides itself on a sober, methodical approach, the reaction to her findings was a hysterical one, followed by research which dramatically departed from her methods and patient profiles.

It is interesting to note that the same Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University who proclaimed the retroviral theory of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to be dead in 2012, would quietly admit in 2013 that among a different group of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) patients there was evidence of a retrovirus in 85% of those patients. But rather than boldly exploring that finding, Lipkin is choosing to study the abnormal pattern of inflammatory markers (chemokines and cytokines) that underlie this disorder only in the those without evidence of retroviral infection. This is also confirmation and validation of the work of Dr. Mikovits, as she presented evidence of an abnormal pattern of chemokines and cytokines in this disorder to an invitation-only meeting for twenty-four leading scientists at the National Institutes of Health which was held on July 22, 2009.

But Dr. Mikovits is no fading violet, content to fade into the background as more powerful men in the scientific community attempt to take credit for her work and marginalize a desperately ill patient population. Many have commented that Mikovits has a "quality of fierceness" that is rarely seen in scientists today. But even more remarkable is her compassion for patients struggling with cancer and diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and autism. She seeks out patients, befriends them, and listens to their stories in an attempt to understand their diseases. She believes this is the method of classical scientific investigation, formulating a scientific hypothesis based on information from those most intimately connected to a problem.

The duty of a scientist is to seek the truth and alleviate human suffering. That has been the guiding principle of Dr. Mikovits' work since she was a young girl and watched her grandfather and step-father courageously battle cancer. And so when her research found that children with autism also tested positive for XMRV, it was only reasonable for her to state that this was consistent with parental observations of a change in their children following a vaccination.

After the barrage of attacks on her personal and professional reputation left so many questioning what was true and what was false, Dr. Mikovits decided to collaborate on a book about her work with Kent Heckenlively, a science teacher, attorney, and autism advocate. The book, "PLAGUE: One Scientist's Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases" struck a deep chord with GreenMedInfo founder, Sayer Ji, and he even wrote an endorsement for the back cover.

"PLAGUE is a book so revolutionary in its implications that its author courageously faced character assassination and unlawful incarceration to keep her findings from being relegated to the dustbin of medical history. Riveting, if not at times paradigm shifting, this book reveals a dark side to modern medicine that no one knows exists, but that everyone should."

The final chapter poses a very important question "whether any powerful group should be 'self-policing' without significant oversight from independent bodies." It's easy to become trapped in tunnel vision, which is why I think that it is always a good idea to take a step back, look at the big picture, and ask probing questions."

We so often lament the lack of courage in our political and scientific discourse that it can seem unbelievable when a person of true courage and integrity steps forward, speaks the truth, and faces the consequences. Dr. Mikovits has done all of these things and paid a heavy price. Those who think they have succeeded in keeping this information hidden may believe they have won.

But an oppressive system is at its weakest when it confronts a person who will not back down. The truth-teller forces the oppressive system to let slip its mask of reason and show the face of the beast that hides beneath it. That is why all of our stories tell the same tale; that of a hero seemingly struck down, but who comes back, possessed of what seems to be an almost supernatural strength to vanquish the evil-doers.

Yes, in a better world, Dr. Mikovits would already be heading up the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, or the National Institutes of Health. There may have been a time when Dr. Mikovits longed to have her reputation redeemed so that she could continue her work among long-standing friends and colleagues. It's only human to want the world to return to the way you have known. But it was the system which needed redemption and her courage and sacrifice is but a midwife to a rebirth of true science.

GreenMedInfo is proud to stand with Dr. Mikovits in her quest for honest, unbiased science. We are confident that one day she will stand at the very pinnacle of science and her exploits will thrill the hearts of the young who want to follow in her footsteps. And we will be very proud to have played even a small role in that story.

 

[free at last]

I know one thing, as for the idea of a retro virus, not being symptomatic with everyone. I got ill with clear viral symptoms. again and again. Not one in my family ever followed suit, that always bugged me. Why they never had this damm flu. a flu that I couldn't get rid of. that just seemed to weaken over many years. that I still think I have today ?

God I hope this idea is wrong. I hope lipkin is playing it straight. I want to believe lipkin. Why when I read snippets here. Do I fear a conspiracy. Stop it your making me paranoid again.. I had gotten over being told I had XMRV by Judys work on the ashford 50s blood. samples it was contamination, could we really have another unknown retro virus ?

Were did my blood go. Cant lipkin have a look I am sure he would find my blood very interesting, its done a lot of things to me over the years, and still fought back ?
tongue in cheek. but I mean it really

 

[Bob]

I hope lipkin is playing it straight.

None of us can know the full extent of another person's motivations but I've got no reason to doubt him. Lipkin is a virus hunter and, if there is a new virus to be found, then I'm sure that his scientific curiosity, along with his care for patients, combined with an academic ego, and his self-interest would drive him towards uncovering it. The viral particles that he detected were found in equal measure in both patients and controls which indicates probable contamination. Even so, I'd be very surprised if he hadn't followed it up with some further private investigations of his own to see what he's detected. He's in it for answers.