What are the correct mtDNA results for the Robinson Paper?
After reading the Oakes paper, I went to look for the equivalent mtDNA figures in the Robinson paper and to my surprise found this paper seems to directly contradict itself on this point.
They found 21 out of 437 prostate cancer cases to be XMRV positive by PCR (4.8%).
In the results section of the abstract it states in relation to these 21 cases, “…many, but not all were positive for mtDNA.” Yet ‘Table 1’ in the back says 13/21 XMRV+ cases were not tested for mtDNA, one was positive and five were negative. The statement in the text directly contradicts what is in the table. There is no explanation given in the footnote of the table as to why the 13 samples were not tested (seems bizarre that they wouldn’t have been tested)
Additionally the table still does not add up properly to 21 for the mtDNA test even if you allow for the missing 13. The ‘missing 13’ is really the ‘missing 15’. Given the contradictory statement in the text, this missing information seems suspect. If this paper didn’t test 13 of the samples, then why not?
In any case, as with the Oakes paper, if they did find “many” XMRV+ samples positive using the mtDNA test then the same logic would have to apply, in that you would expect at least some “contaminated” samples should have shown up when Mikovits and Lo/Alter ran the mtDNA tests on their own samples.