Ruscetti Acknowledges Resuse of WB Image 2

[omegaman]

@Bob:

JM has shown with the 'blind' results that she cant repeat her own PCR results unless she knows what the answer 'should' be. We know that she has been unwilling to let anyone else have access to her experimental materials to make independent tests for contamination. We know that she failed to reveal a key experimental detail, the 5AZA treatment, this we do know can cause exactly the kind of artifacts that she is reporting as results, and that in the one place she revealed that usage, she did not do the key control, for those artifacts.



.

Isn't it being reported that not all of the ONLY 15 patient samples in the blood working group study were actually tested at the WPI/Mikovits. I'm hearing some of the samples were tested at Vipdx . Mikovits does not and has not fealt comfortable with the Vipdx testign accuracy. So is the issue that the Vipdx testing is not accurate but the WPI testing was? It seems at least a possiblity? Also only 15 samples? That does not provide much power. An how many of those 15 were tested at the WPI and how many at Vipdx? I'm hoping the Lipkin study proceeds and can sort out the mess.

 

[asleep]

From the NatureNews article: "This is the problem of people trying to interpret lab jargon," says Ruscetti.

What we've seen over the past couple days is speculation about motive and intention, resulting in unambiguous accusations of fraud. Given how little information we know and how little context we have, these claims being made by ERV, Lee, joshualevy and others are prime examples of a fundamental attribution error.

When we are trying to understand and explain what happens in social settings, we tend to view behavior as a particularly significant factor. We then tend to explain behavior in terms of internal disposition, such as personality traits, abilities, motives, etc. as opposed to external situational factors.

This can be due to our focus on the person more than their situation, about which we may know very little. We also know little about how they are interpreting the situation.

Character assassination works by discounting the the situational, circumstantial, and unknown aspects of behavior in favor of speculative explanations about motive. I hope people see what is going on here.

 

[Dreambirdie]

My current take on things: Giant kudos to WPI and Judy Mikovitz for everything they have done on our behalf. Despite some apparent missteps on their parts, I think their intentions have always been good, and their efforts have given ME a lot of publicity. Some would argue it's mostly been bad publicity, but I have to disagree. I think more people than ever now believe there is a pathogenic cause to ME, primarily because of the articles generated by the original 2009 Science paper.

It appears both WPI and Judy Mikovitz have made mistakes. Some argue they were major, others argue they were minor. Either way, I would say it matters far, far less than the fact that there are apparently many things about the research results which are not so easy to scientifically dismiss. From what I can gather, many unanswered questions call for much more research, and need to be more fully explored (and probably will).

From my own perspective, so much of this controversy is far better than no controversy and/or no publicity at all. I've been dealing with pretty entrenched ME for almost 30 years, and the dearth of information and/or research during most of this time has been disheartening. Though the news of the past few days has been fairly disconcerting, to me its far preferable than no news at all. Personally, I have more confidence than ever that research will continue, and that breakthroughs will happen as a result.

Best, Wayne

Thanks Wayne. I agree with most of what you have said. I am grateful for the work the WPI and Judy Mikovitz have done on our behalf, though I am still a bit shocked at Annette Whittemore for firing Judy. I can understand that they have had some serious differences, but why couldn't those be worked out in mediation or even in a few therapy sessions with a really good facilitator?

It's clear that being involved in "controversial" research is very stressful and that can reek havoc on people's emotions. Every one of us is just human after all, and humans tend to be a rather egotistical and self-righteous species. When things get heated, it's easy to overreact and resort to extremes measures, and firing the most devoted ME/CFS researcher we've ever had qualifies as such in my mind.

My wish is that both Annette and Judy chill out, take some time to assess the situation from a calmer place, go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make things work. It probably won't happen, of course, but wouldn't it be great if people in the scientific community actually learned how to listen to each other and work out their issues from a broader perspective. Really, wouldn't it?