Dr Mikovits excellent reply to Science Journal Request for Retraction of XMRV paper

[RedRuth]

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

 

[RedRuth]

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.

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.

 

[anncavan]

I'm most concerned that Science has weight, and what they're doing in my eyes seems quite wreckless. There are too many important studies happening right now, or just about to... they're tainting the community and scaring doctors away from this field. An FB page has been started in the effort to show support for Lombardi et al and asking Science to NOT retract the article. If the numbers are high enough, I think Science could take notice. If interested, click on the link and "like" the page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/...-Retraction-of-Lombardi-et-al/134502569957481

 

[Wayne]

I also have to say that her credibility destroying move of associating with the anti vaxxers doesn't bode well.

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.

 

[floydguy]

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?

 

[RedRuth]

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?

Presumably to save her the embarrassment of retracting it for her.

 

[Bob]

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

Thanks LJS, could you point me towards the relevant information please?

 

[RedRuth]

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.

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.

 

[penny]

Presumably to save her the embarrassment of retracting it for her.

Really? Awfully considerate of them to be so worried about her feelings.

I'm glad she (and the other authors of the study) are more concerned with the truth (be it xmrv or not) and scientific process then about being embarrassed.

Embarrassed. Jeez.

 

[Wayne]

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.

When you use an abusive term like "anti-vaxxers", you're denigratingly referring to people who have legitimate concerns about vaccine safety. You're also implying people who have safety concerns are anti-vaccination; they aren't. You then attempt to judge Judy M. based on your own biases. Shouldn't "scientists" be a little more careful in the words they choose and the opinions they express, especially when they don't come across as particularly scientific?

 

[dannybex]

I think that Dr. Mikovits' response is very-well written, and that her arguments are very strong.

I agree Omerbasket.

The only thing that I don't understand is the argument that it can't be contamination because there was an antibody response. Isn't it possible to develop antibodies to non-viral (or bacterial, fungal) things -- like antibodies to gluten or gliaden, among other things?

 

[Cort]

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.

You have a point. The reply - a really substantial one it looks like - would be much stronger if she had more of the original co-authors on it but neither Silverman or Ruscetti signed on. I would be surprised if this was due to time constraints - Science contacted them some time ago I have been told.

Dr. Mikovits, though, gives us all the goods! That is quite a substantial reply...

I missed the fireworks - I was proceeding through the early posts and hadn't gotten to them. Please, if you have an issue click on the report button and alert the moderators.

 

[Dainty]

Thread cleaned up and re-opened. :Retro smile:

 

[eric_s]

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

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.

 

[Esther12]

Sciencemag piece: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/new-data-spark-retraction-reques.html?ref=ra

 

[Chris]

Just two more comments:
1) RedRuth, this bit about "vaxxers"; there are very legitimate concerns about vaccines--the Wakefield story has many updates you are evidently not aware of--the attack on him was by a paid journalist, and Wakefield has produced clear evidence that his views were soundly based on case histories from other doctors--and there is a recent essay from U of California, Davis (Miller NZ, "Infant mortality"), showing a very clear statistical relationship between the number of early vaccinations and childhood mortality statistics for a large group of countries. Very disturbing stuff. You are accepting media accounts as repesenting true science!

2) it is disturbing that researchers seem to find it easy to get grants to "disprove" connections between XMRV and CFS ( look at the Knox paper today--"private funds"), but while they (and all the papers on immune function that point to an ongoing infection) happily state that there must be some other bug at work, it seems there is very little money available to help find it--Chia, Lerner, etc. all have trouble getting grants. So... where is the money flowing, and from where? Chris

 

[Mark]

Sciencemag piece: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/new-data-spark-retraction-reques.html?ref=ra

"...all but one of the co-authors of the original paper joined a conference call Friday morning and agreed not to retract..."

Mikovits says neither of the new studies undermines her group's original report. Anyone who reads the new papers, she asserts, will conclude that they "have nothing to do with Lombardi et al." The original study only speaks to labs that have used a specific prostate cancer cell line or its derivatives, she contends. As her letter to Alberts and Bradford explains in detail, the human cell lines in her group's lab repeatedly tested negative for XMRV, and they have no mouse lines. As for the Levy study, Mikovits insists that her team carefully controlled for contamination of reagents. She also claims the work fails to faithfully replicate their methods. "They didn't do one thing we did," she says. Levy disagrees, saying, "We did it exactly the way they did it."

 

[Daffodil]

its a shame they havent perfected ways to detect low-copy pathogens...i am sure they are behind so many diseases but no one can agree on anything!

 

[max]

Hello

RedRuth - "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."

Hope your sister does not have CFS (whatever that is) - I'm not a scientist but I am human and I have empathy.

I've been reading on this forum for longer than I care to admit - everyday. There are some fine minds here (mine not one of them!) - yes there are some loud strong voices and sometimes there are arguments (annimated discussions) - but on the whole we, as an online community, have a common aim - to end the suffering.

I havn't a clue when people discuss the finer points of "science" - however, I have spoken with enough "scientists" to realise they are not worthy of any more or any less respect than any other human being.

In my humble opinion, I find it odd that there is so much desperation to get Judy M out of the game - the powers that be have given Wessely & Co 20+ years to get their torture regime accepted - and still they try.

As a 'scientist' RedRuth, how do you account for the endless funding and recycling of Wesselys theories. If science is as perfect as you appear to suggest, then why has Wessely still got the backing of authority, and seemingly endless funding when his ideas, after all these years, do nothing to help patients - if it did, then surely by now, pwME would be improving, they would be fewer in number.

When Wessely started his venture, there were 1,000,000 globally with ME, today, estimates vary between 17,000,000 and who knows what. In the UK we don't even have reliable figures. The scientists don't appear bothered. They merely extrapolate from data elsewhere.

Conspiracy is an accurate description of the events of the last 20 years - if you'd bothered to research the subject for your sister then you may have reached the same conclusion all on your own - independent thought is not an academics strong point I accept.

Apologies if you think I am out of order - I've been a witness of the devastaing effects of ME for 15years - it only gets harder - If you jump into a forum, expect to talk to all members of the community.


max

 

[acer2000]

"...all but one of the co-authors of the original paper joined a conference call Friday morning and agreed not to retract..."

I'm guessing the "but one" is Dr. Peterson. After today's actions, it is pretty clear that he has thrown his lot in with Dr. Levy after his falling out with the WPI.

This whole Dr. Levy study and press blast is kind of bizarre if you ask me. He didn't replicate the original study methods. So while his study is interesting and perhaps important, it isn't the thorough response to the 2009 study he claimed it would be. Because of this it doesn't answer many of the outstanding questions about XMRV and its association with CFS - in fact in some ways it just serves to complicate the picture.

While the Lipkin and BWG studies are really important - we really need a true replication study to be done by an independent lab. We are still waiting...