Article: WPI Wins Lawsuit/Science Retracts XMRV Paper/Mikovits Back to Work on XMRV
- Thread starter Phoenix Rising Team
- Start date
This is nuts. First, the judge should be aware of the international nature of this case, and the need for people to see what Mikovits had to say for herself, and why he decided against her. Next, Mikovits attorney saying it's wonderful that she lost, because it's all his fault for missing the deadlines. Is this a real trial, or something from Franz Kafka?
Hi Cort,
I would welcome a source for the final paragraph inferring that NGS will be used in the XMRV study that includes Ruscetti and Mikovits please.
There are two studies that Lipkin is involved with as I understand it and I have not heard mention that NGS will be used in the XMRV-related one before.
Admittedly the details of both studies are sketchy and to be honest I don't know if NGS is a generalised term (I have yet to try and read about it specifically), but I understood that the 3 lab XMRV study would be trying once again to replicate the results of Lombardi et al.
Am happy to be corrected of course.
Also, did you happen to see the update from Cohen about the Mikovits legal dispute? He attached it to his article on 22/12/11: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/civil-court-rules-against-chronic.html?ref=hp
Personally, I couldn't understand what Freeman was talking about or where his confidence stems from. Then again it comes with the job I suppose - being a defense lawyer.
I would welcome a source for the final paragraph inferring that NGS will be used in the XMRV study that includes Ruscetti and Mikovits please.
There are two studies that Lipkin is involved with as I understand it and I have not heard mention that NGS will be used in the XMRV-related one before.
Admittedly the details of both studies are sketchy and to be honest I don't know if NGS is a generalised term (I have yet to try and read about it specifically), but I understood that the 3 lab XMRV study would be trying once again to replicate the results of Lombardi et al.
Am happy to be corrected of course.
Also, did you happen to see the update from Cohen about the Mikovits legal dispute? He attached it to his article on 22/12/11: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/civil-court-rules-against-chronic.html?ref=hp
Personally, I couldn't understand what Freeman was talking about or where his confidence stems from. Then again it comes with the job I suppose - being a defense lawyer.
That was taken from Caroline and I suppose her conversation with Ian Lipkin. I can try and get in touch with her. It does sound like there's something extra in there that we didn't expect. I suppose it could be that they are not using their old protocols but are going with the new technology. I agree its confusing. I will try and get in touch with her.
The judge appears to have completely rejected Freeman's arguments on behalf of Dr. Mikovits. I'm not sure what those were. I remember at one point he said she was entitled to retain the documents. Why he argued that I don't know.
Its a bizarre swing that's for sure. It would be interesting to find out the arguments the judge found so unusual or unsuccessful or whatever that he didn't respond to them and just gave his ruling.
That was a very bad move by Mikovits. Obviously we dont know her reasons, or what advise she was given, but you just dont get away with ignoring the judges instructions. I cant help but think that this must have had a bearing on the eventual outcome, as Judges just dont allow you to get away with that sort of behaviour.
Pleased to hear that Lipkin is open to the possibility that Mitkovits' results may have a relation to some other virus. At least she has the chance to prove there is something if she really still believes that. It certainly looks like she needs to find it to lessen the presure on her.
Dr. Mikovits criminal attorney, Scott Freeman, stated that the ruling against Dr. Mikovits was wonderful and was mostly due to her civil attorney's failing to meet deadlines.
Okay, I assume this is sarcasm (although my addled brain first time just thought it was weird).
Thanks.
From your article back in June: http://phoenixrising.me/archives/5778 it doesn't mention 'Next Generation Sequencing' either, similarly neither does Lipkin himself in relation to this single study: http://www.virology.ws/2011/05/06/ian-lipkin-on-xmrv/ and I couldn't find (still haven't been able to find) the detail he referred to as being posted on the NIH site.
Nature 15 December 2011 did carry an update of course: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/12/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-scientist-finds-a-temporary-home.html but there appears even less detail about his more general 'virus hunt'.
Would be interesting to learn more. And perhaps something about this 'mystery' NGS study too?
Happy Christmas.
There was a 'debate' occurring on Facebook with some comments from Kim McCleary and CAA. One of which I felt was pertinent:
'The second study, being coordinated by Dr. Ian Lipkin for NIAID, is under way. Dr. Mikovits told David Tuller of the New York Times last week, "'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. (See http://nyti.ms/v9YzDf)
The samples collected for the Lipkin study will also be tested for novel and known pathogens using molecular techniques that his team has pioneered.
According to the Columbia Unversity web site, "He and his team have discovered or characterized more than 400 infectious agents including Borna disease virus, West Nile virus, LuJo virus, human rhinovrirus C, piscine reovirus and canine hepacivirus." There are other novel pathogen searches under way in other labs as well.'
https://www.facebook.com/CFIDSAssn/posts/10150433347292108?notif_t=feed_comment_reply
I smell confusion (largely my own) about these Lipkin studies but still think there are two specific ones...
From Wall Street Journal back in November 2011:
'At least three labs have agreed to test fresh blood samples for XMRV. Two labs, at FDA/NIH and the Whittemore-Peterson Institute, have previously found XMRV or related viruses in patients. The third lab, at the CDC, has not.
Clinicians who treat patients in different regions of the country, including Miami, Boston, Palo Alto, and Salt Lake City, will be collecting the blood from both healthy people and CFS patients.
Lipkin tells the Health Blog that the study focuses on whether XMRV or other viruses in the same family are found in higher frequency in patients with CFS.
As a starting point, everyone had to agree on how to define a CFS patient for the purposes of the study. The issue has been highly contentious and Lipkin says they tried to agree to criteria for patient selection that includes everyones viewpoints.
The solution: the study will seek to enroll people who in addition to meeting criteria for two widely used, symptom-based definitions of CFS, showed signs of infection such as a sore throat or tender lymph nodes around the time they developed CFS. The thought is that if there is a viral link to CFS, its most likely to show up in those patients.
More work still needs to be done. The physicians participating in the study will meet with Lipkin in coming weeks to develop a standard checklist for evaluating patients. The scientists are still working out a common protocol for how they handle and process the blood.
But Lipkin tells the Health Blog that everything they are doing is designed to make it possible to finally end the debate over whether XMRV is associated with CFS.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/17/gearing-up-for-the-big-search-for-xmrv/
'The second study, being coordinated by Dr. Ian Lipkin for NIAID, is under way. Dr. Mikovits told David Tuller of the New York Times last week, "'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. (See http://nyti.ms/v9YzDf)
The samples collected for the Lipkin study will also be tested for novel and known pathogens using molecular techniques that his team has pioneered.
According to the Columbia Unversity web site, "He and his team have discovered or characterized more than 400 infectious agents including Borna disease virus, West Nile virus, LuJo virus, human rhinovrirus C, piscine reovirus and canine hepacivirus." There are other novel pathogen searches under way in other labs as well.'
https://www.facebook.com/CFIDSAssn/posts/10150433347292108?notif_t=feed_comment_reply
I smell confusion (largely my own) about these Lipkin studies but still think there are two specific ones...
From Wall Street Journal back in November 2011:
'At least three labs have agreed to test fresh blood samples for XMRV. Two labs, at FDA/NIH and the Whittemore-Peterson Institute, have previously found XMRV or related viruses in patients. The third lab, at the CDC, has not.
Clinicians who treat patients in different regions of the country, including Miami, Boston, Palo Alto, and Salt Lake City, will be collecting the blood from both healthy people and CFS patients.
Lipkin tells the Health Blog that the study focuses on whether XMRV or other viruses in the same family are found in higher frequency in patients with CFS.
As a starting point, everyone had to agree on how to define a CFS patient for the purposes of the study. The issue has been highly contentious and Lipkin says they tried to agree to criteria for patient selection that includes everyones viewpoints.
The solution: the study will seek to enroll people who in addition to meeting criteria for two widely used, symptom-based definitions of CFS, showed signs of infection such as a sore throat or tender lymph nodes around the time they developed CFS. The thought is that if there is a viral link to CFS, its most likely to show up in those patients.
More work still needs to be done. The physicians participating in the study will meet with Lipkin in coming weeks to develop a standard checklist for evaluating patients. The scientists are still working out a common protocol for how they handle and process the blood.
But Lipkin tells the Health Blog that everything they are doing is designed to make it possible to finally end the debate over whether XMRV is associated with CFS.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/17/gearing-up-for-the-big-search-for-xmrv/
Hi Santi,
Yes. At least according to Enlander (?) recently - one would be forgiven for thinking so.
This has been posted about the place recently: Next generation sequencing of prostate tumours provides independent evidence of XMRV contamination. Mind you the full paper might not be up to much I suppose but it is the most current and pertinent reference to NGS I could find.
Hi Cort,
Err... me again...
From your article above:
'Dr. Mikovits legal troubles continue but shes back at work on XMRV. On December 15th Nature News reported Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Ruscetti will finish the 2.3 million dollar Lipkin XMRV study funded by the NAIAD.'
Nature: March 2011: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110314/full/471282a.html
Others, too, are rallying for a definitive answer. Ian Lipkin, a microbial epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York, has a reputation for getting to the bottom of mysterious diseasepathogen links. His team debunked the association between Borna disease virus and chronic fatigue, for example. Now he is spearheading the $1.3-million effort funded by the US government.
He is leaving the testing to three labs: Mikovits's at the WPI, Alter's at the NIH and the CDC. Each will receive coded samples of white blood cells and plasma from 150 patients with chronic fatigue and from 150 healthy controls. The labs will test for XMRV using their method of choice. Lipkin will crunch the data and unblind the samples.
But even if a study confirms the link to chronic fatigue, it won't be able to determine whether the virus is the cause. XMRV could, for example, be an opportunistic infection affecting those whose immune systems are already dampened by chronic fatigue. Even Mikovits can only hypothesize as to how it might cause disease.'
I have written to NIAIDS asking for details as I couldn't find anything on their website. Will post if they reply with anything conclusive.
Fire
Err... me again...
From your article above:
'Dr. Mikovits legal troubles continue but shes back at work on XMRV. On December 15th Nature News reported Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Ruscetti will finish the 2.3 million dollar Lipkin XMRV study funded by the NAIAD.'
Nature: March 2011: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110314/full/471282a.html
Others, too, are rallying for a definitive answer. Ian Lipkin, a microbial epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York, has a reputation for getting to the bottom of mysterious diseasepathogen links. His team debunked the association between Borna disease virus and chronic fatigue, for example. Now he is spearheading the $1.3-million effort funded by the US government.
He is leaving the testing to three labs: Mikovits's at the WPI, Alter's at the NIH and the CDC. Each will receive coded samples of white blood cells and plasma from 150 patients with chronic fatigue and from 150 healthy controls. The labs will test for XMRV using their method of choice. Lipkin will crunch the data and unblind the samples.
But even if a study confirms the link to chronic fatigue, it won't be able to determine whether the virus is the cause. XMRV could, for example, be an opportunistic infection affecting those whose immune systems are already dampened by chronic fatigue. Even Mikovits can only hypothesize as to how it might cause disease.'
I have written to NIAIDS asking for details as I couldn't find anything on their website. Will post if they reply with anything conclusive.
Fire
Could the $1 million difference be the funding for the NGS pathogen study? If so, I have to question the journalistic competence of Science, because the article was framed as if the entire $2.3 million is a waste due to XMRV being a dead end (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/in-a-rare-move-science-without-a.html).
Hi Cort,
Err... me again...
From your article above:
'Dr. Mikovits legal troubles continue but shes back at work on XMRV. On December 15th Nature News reported Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Ruscetti will finish the 2.3 million dollar Lipkin XMRV study funded by the NAIAD.'
Nature: March 2011: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110314/full/471282a.html
Others, too, are rallying for a definitive answer. Ian Lipkin, a microbial epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York, has a reputation for getting to the bottom of mysterious diseasepathogen links. His team debunked the association between Borna disease virus and chronic fatigue, for example. Now he is spearheading the $1.3-million effort funded by the US government.
He is leaving the testing to three labs: Mikovits's at the WPI, Alter's at the NIH and the CDC. Each will receive coded samples of white blood cells and plasma from 150 patients with chronic fatigue and from 150 healthy controls. The labs will test for XMRV using their method of choice. Lipkin will crunch the data and unblind the samples.
But even if a study confirms the link to chronic fatigue, it won't be able to determine whether the virus is the cause. XMRV could, for example, be an opportunistic infection affecting those whose immune systems are already dampened by chronic fatigue. Even Mikovits can only hypothesize as to how it might cause disease.'
I have written to NIAIDS asking for details as I couldn't find anything on their website. Will post if they reply with anything conclusive.
Fire
From what I've heard the next generation sequencing - as you point out - has nothing to do with the NIAID study so that leaves, if the infiormation is correct, the CFI study. Earlier they said that XMRV/HGRV's were not going to be part of the study. Perhaps they have changed their minds?
I think this is the most important thing to come out of this - Dr. Mikovits will have one last definitive chance to find XMRV/HGRV's - if it doesn
't work out then the book is closed on that issue....if she does then it opens up again - either way, the CFS community will have closure (hopefully
)
Cort, pls also correct the error about Freeman at this other, parallel part of the site.
http://phoenixrising.me/archives/6766
BTW, I think you should just eliminate that part of the site since it is redundant and is just an impediment for people trying to get to the forums.
What Freeman meant by saying the disposition was "wonderful" for the criminal defense is that the fact that Mikovits lost in the civil case in this fashion- the striking of pleadings, as opposed to on the merits- is better for the criminal case than if she had lost on the merits. He was not saying it was wonderful that Judy lost the case in and of itself (although it is still a little aspergers to call this 'wonderful' for the criminal defense).
And, as Freeman implies, this disposition does not "open the way" for a criminal case as you say.
By saying Mikovits' "next" arraignment is coming up, you imply that she is the subject of more than one criminal action. This is not the case. Her (one and only) arraignment is on 1/10/12.
http://phoenixrising.me/archives/6766
BTW, I think you should just eliminate that part of the site since it is redundant and is just an impediment for people trying to get to the forums.
What Freeman meant by saying the disposition was "wonderful" for the criminal defense is that the fact that Mikovits lost in the civil case in this fashion- the striking of pleadings, as opposed to on the merits- is better for the criminal case than if she had lost on the merits. He was not saying it was wonderful that Judy lost the case in and of itself (although it is still a little aspergers to call this 'wonderful' for the criminal defense).
And, as Freeman implies, this disposition does not "open the way" for a criminal case as you say.
By saying Mikovits' "next" arraignment is coming up, you imply that she is the subject of more than one criminal action. This is not the case. Her (one and only) arraignment is on 1/10/12.
Firestorm wrote:
"But even if a study confirms the link to chronic fatigue, it won't be able to determine whether the virus is the cause. XMRV could, for example, be an opportunistic infection affecting those whose immune systems are already dampened by chronic fatigue...."
.
EEerrr - what exactly are you talking about here, Firestorm? "Chronic Fatigue"? - Or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - CCC/ICC? Or is it "fuzzy boundaries" fatiguing illness that you are talking about?
"But even if a study confirms the link to chronic fatigue, it won't be able to determine whether the virus is the cause. XMRV could, for example, be an opportunistic infection affecting those whose immune systems are already dampened by chronic fatigue...."
.
EEerrr - what exactly are you talking about here, Firestorm? "Chronic Fatigue"? - Or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - CCC/ICC? Or is it "fuzzy boundaries" fatiguing illness that you are talking about?