Isn't it possible that the false labeling in the Science article was to boost confidence in the overall thesis of the paper? If JM relabeled negative patients as normal controls, that is a serious issue in my opinion, because that increases confidence in the overall finding. Had she showed on that original graphic that there were in fact many negative patient results, that would have created less confidence. I realize it is a bit of a balancing act, to decide what to show in a given graphic, when you are publishing a scientific paper. The researcher wants to show their interpretation of things, while at the same time presenting the data authentically. The reason to even show graphics like that is to make a point about the data. So what point was she trying to make? This seems like a bit of 'marketing' by JM. Technically I would not agree it was falsification of data, the overall data numbers do not change. However, it does seem to be a bit of spin-doctoring of her charts, and that does make me want to more carefully evaluate other things she has said. So I am saying, I agree with those here who are saying JM has given us reason to doubt, when she says something is it marketing spin or real data? But I also agree with those here who say this is not equal to scientific fraud. I suppose that puts me in the middle.
Anyway, IMHO the whole gel issue is not relevant to the reasons the Lombardi article should be retracted. And I do believe it should and will be retracted. But not because of the gel graphic, really that is unfortunate trivia here. There is a far greater reason for retraction, and that is 1) the inability of WPI to replicate their own experimental data in the BWG; 2) the many 0/0 papers, many of which are very solid science (there may have been a few with problem cohorts, but most used real ME/CFS patients). Neither of these reasons would have changed had the gels been properly labeled in the Science study.
WPI has had two years to conduct blinded studies that would prove they could replicate the experiment and they failed. So the greater question I have for all the pro-JM forum members is this. How did WPI get their original PCR test results? 67% positive among ME/CFS patients and only a few % positive in the control group. At one point JM did say in a presentation (I believe in 2010) that they often had to run patient samples several times in order to get positive results. There are indications the control groups used in the Science study may have been tested at different times or in some other way differently than the patient samples. That is what I expect the Science investigation is most interested in, because realistically, if WPI could not replicate with the BWG study, there has to be an alternate explanation for the original PCR results. If the patient and control samples were run differently, then the whole paper is likely invalidated and should be retracted. That is my opinion anyway, I don't expect everyone here to agree, but I think in time the issue of how the original results were obtained will become more important. Were the patient samples run many times, until most were positive? In nested PCR testing every additional run increases risk of contamination...so if patient samples were run more often than the matched control samples, there would be a high risk of false results. I'm not saying that happened, just pointing out there has to be some explanation for the original PCR testing. And in the face of the BWG study, that explanation may not be favorable to JM/WPI.
None of this takes away from the importance of continuing research into all types of pathogens in ME/CFS, including any type of virus for which there is solid evidence. The possible retraction of the Lombardi paper is really not an all-or-nothing situation for us. But I can understand people who have supported JM and WPI don't want to see their hope and financial support evaporate and contribute nothing to ME/CFS. But to those of us who have experience in the research world, a retraction will come as no surprise, research is a very expensive, high risk activity.
