From the Nature article:
"Mikovits says that the Science paper didn't mention the azacytidine treatment because that detail was not necessary for the publication. Instead, the authors referred to the samples as being 'activated'. But for her presentation, she wanted to emphasize that the addition of methyl groups to viral nucleic acids may have prevented the virus from being detected using standard assays. Azacytidine strips off those methyl groups and, Mikovits argues, can boost viral gene expression."
-----------------------
In immunology, 'activation" means something very specific - essentially, turning on the immune functions of the cells.
In Figure 2A, they describe how they activated the cells (this seems important enough to describe):
"PBMCs were activated with phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2..."
In Figure 2C, they say:
"Lysates of activated PBMCs from healthy donors (lanes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7) or from CFS patients (lanes 3 and 6) "
Activated PBMCs.
Nothing about 5AZA.
When JM implies that describing the cells as 'activated' covers the 5AZA treatment - she is not being truthful.
Remember, Ruscetti says that the Ottowa labels were correct, and from Ottowa we know that only the patient samples were treated with 5AZA.All the samples were activated. Activation does not mean 5AZA.
------------------------
JM argues that mentioning the 5AZA treatment was not necessary for publication.
She also says that treatment with 5AZA boosts virus production.
So, by her own words, they boosted virus production in patient samples, did not do so in controls. They saw virus in patient but not controls - they showed us this, in the WB. They used this difference to claim that patients have virus, but controls do not.
But they didn't feel it was necessary to mention that they had boosted virus production in patient samples but not controls?
It's a ludicrous claim.