How is that Mikovits' problem exactly?
I would have thought this is science's problem?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that reproducibility is a problem for Mikovits. If her work is rejected it's because of this and not because of a conspiracy
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.
How is that Mikovits' problem exactly?
I would have thought this is science's problem?
Lo/Alter reproduced it. That is the problem with the negative side. How do they explain that? Contamination? Fine prove that a world class lab has gotten contaminated. Prove that this contaminant is not infectious and isn't a public health issue.
I also have to say that her credibility destroying move of associating with the anti vaxxers doesn't bode well.
Isn't that the point of all the further studies? I don't know if Mikovits' work is right or not, but from my disinterested position it's not looking good.
Here's the thing that upsets a lot of people...Why does Science feel compelled to ask Mikovits to retract the study? Especially with Lipkin "The Virus Hunter" in the middle of a comprehensive study?
Yes, take a look at the supporting online material for the science paper published today, it is VP62.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/05/31/science.1204963.DC1/1204963s.pdf
You decry the abuse of scientists on this board, but you readily use an abusive term to describe people who have legitimate concerns about vaccination safety. Most people who have these concerns do not want to end vaccinations, they want to see more research done to improve safety. I have to say, you're losing credibility with these kinds of comments. I would encourage you to be a bit more concerned about your own credibility than Judy M's.
Presumably to save her the embarrassment of retracting it for her.
Andrew Wakefield was struck off for dishonesty and abuse of vulnerable children and his work was retracted. I don't think criticising him is unfair.
I think that Dr. Mikovits' response is very-well written, and that her arguments are very strong.
It's getting a bit tiresome that Mikovits always has to be the one to rush to our defence. Where are the others, like Alter, Silverman, Ruscetti, Klein? It's like she stands alone.
The work was reproduced. Follow-up studies were negative more often than positive, but that doesn't mean one can just omit the work that reproduced the initial study. There are at least 4 other groups that have reported finding HGRVs in the blood of people with ME/CFS.Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that reproducibility is a problem for Mikovits. If her work is rejected it's because of this and not because of a conspiracy
"...all but one of the co-authors of the original paper joined a conference call Friday morning and agreed not to retract..."