The Race to Retract Lombardi 2009...

[Wonko]

I dont know about Bob but I'm fine with it - "dumbing down" is common practice in every field everywhere. Or do you consider every text book to be full of falsified data? All educators to be frauds?

 

[Lee]

No, I don't hate JM. I hate falsification of data. i hate scientific fraud - and intentional falsification of data is fraud.

No, I'm not worried about libel. I said - 'that action, which you admitted to doing, is in my opinion fraud.' Or - 'that action, which you admit to and defend, si by definition falsification of data, which is fraud' Here in the US, we get to say when someone has done something and call it what it is, and we get to have and to state our opinion. i haven't attributed to either JM or Ruscetti anything that isn't in the record.

That wasn't 'dumbing down.' it was showing you a picture and telling you it was of one thing, when it was actually of something else, meaning something else. They claim to have done the experiment. Show the experiment. it is 45 minutes work to scan the gel and put labels on it and put it in a slide. If the gel isn't clean - that; the data. If the gel is laid out in a confusing way - that's the data. Show the data, don't substitute and make up the data. Showing the data is science. Making up the data is falsification.

JM and Ruscetti have had TWO YEARS since the science paper. They were already doing the work, they had a head start. In that time, dozens of labs have performed experiments that failed to confirm their work, and written it up, submitted it, got it reviewed and accepted and published. JM and Ruscetti claim to have some data in a drawer, which they claim supports their hypothesis, but they won't show it, and keep repeating the same damn gel from 2 years ago? With new labels, so they are actually falsifying data from two years ago, and admitting they falsified data? And this is ok? You believe them?

 

[Bob]

Bob, I'm not talking about the 5AZA - although that is also falsification IMO (yes, that is opinion).

I'm talking about the fact that she admitted changing controls to patients in the labeling of at least one of the versions of that blot, and doing it intentionally to 'make it less confusing.'

Knowing that data is one thing, and telling or audience that it is something else, is falsification of data. No opinion involved - thats pretty much the definition of falsified data. She not only admitted she did it, she defended it. Those are facts.

Even more, she said that is is even more acceptable because the audience that she presented data to, was an audience of 'primarily patients.' (note single quotes - i'm paraphrasing from memory. Get that? She defended falsifying data, because it was to patients.

And you are ok with this?

Just to be clear... A negative Western Blot result was labelled as a different negative Western Blot result...
Negative is negative, so no misleading information was included here. The labelling was changed just to save space.
Another Western Blot image could have been included, but it would be identical - negative.
So there was no misleading information here.

 

[Wonko]

Lee

Yes well, were you a copper in a previous life? maybe a lawyer? asking questiosn you know the answer to but asking them including a question which implies guilt just thrown in is a typical manipulative trick designed to force an admission of guilt by default especially when the accussed isnt actually guilty so is stressed enough not to be able to reason clearly.

Please show me where they admitted they falsified data? They may have said that things were changed/simplified for ease of understanding for non professionals - at no point have I read a statement saying "We done it guv, it's a fair cop, we falsified that data"!!

You now have absolutely no credibility as far as i am concerned - I know thats probably not a sigificant factor in your day but as far as I am concenred your posts are now irrelevant noise . This is not unfair, this is simple justice, I am simply employing your own logic against you - you have sated that anyone who makes false statements is guilty of fraude and should be ignored by all, you have made several false statements - the latest one being that JM and FR have admitted falsifyign data - unless you can provide several peer reviewed papers that prove they have said this then I'm sorry but you have yourself made false statements and shoudl suffer the same consequences you have decided are appropiate for others you deem to have committed this offense.

 

[Bob]

i haven't attributed to either JM or Ruscetti anything that isn't in the record.

Well, actually you have because you have continuously accused them of fraud in relation to 5AZA being used in the Western Blot test.
And you said that they can never be trusted again, along with other slurs on their characters.
And these assertions are purely your opinion, because you do not know all of the facts.

 

[Bob]

You now have absolutely no credibility as far as i am concerned - I know thats probably not a sigificant factor in your day but as far as I am concenred your posts are now irrelevant noise . This is not unfair, this is simple justice, I am simply employing your own logic against you - you have sated that anyone who makes false statements is guilty of fraude and should be ignored by all, you have made several false statements - the latest one being that JM and FR have admitted falsifyign data - unless you can provide several peer reviewed papers that prove they have said this then I'm sorry but you have yourself made false statements and shoudl suffer the same consequences you have decided are appropiate for others you deem to have committed this offense.

Lee, Wonko is correct...
By your own logic, you can never be trusted again, because you have made at least one inaccurate statement.
I don't necessarily believe that is true, but I am using your own argument to illustrate why your arguements are meaningless.

 

[Lee]

oh, good...

"you have sated that anyone who makes false statements is guilty of fraude and should be ignored by all, you have made several false statements - the latest one being that JM and FR have admitted falsifyign data"

No.. I'm saying that people who INTENTIONALLY misrepresent their dat and experiments, such that they claim it shows one thing when it shows something else, cant be trusted.

And no, I don;t need to link 'several peer reviewed papers.' I just nee to remind you that JM copped to changing a control lane to say it was a patient lane, and justified it as being 'less confusing.

That is, by definition, falsification of data.

If your clinical lab took someone else's blood, did a test on it, and then gave you the results and said it was your test - that is falsification of data. EVEN IF the results positive or negative are the same, it is data falsification - the actual number may matter, the 'look' of the test may matter, and the guy doing the experiment does not get to mislead you about it, even if he wants to be 'less confusing'. It is knowingly substituting one piece of data for another.

I mean, I don't get why this is even an argument - this is as rock-bottom central to what science is as one can get..

 

[Lee]

@ Bob:

"you have continuously accused them of fraud in relation to 5AZA being used in the Western Blot "

Where? Link them. I think I said ONCE that in my opinion the overall picture looked like fraud. Once. As an opinion. What I've said is that if a scientist can't be trusted to tell all their experimental conditions, we cant know what their results mean. And I have said they falsified data - because THEY told us they falsified data.

 

[Wonko]

..... i haven't attributed to either JM or Ruscetti anything that isn't in the record...Making up the data is falsification....JM and Ruscetti ..... and admitting they falsified data? And this is ok? You believe them?

No.. I'm saying that people who INTENTIONALLY misrepresent their dat and experiments, such that they claim it shows one thing when it shows something else, cant be trusted...

......And I have said they falsified data......

Are you sure you didnt say JM and FR admitted falsifing data? and because of this they cant be trusted? Please provide the quote at least - I mean that cant be hard - one little quote attributable to JM and FR sayinf "We falsified that data, seriously we did"

on a side note anyoen know how this whole block poster thingie works?

edit - BTW I'd be pleasantly surprised if my clinical lab did such a thing, I wasnt aware I owned a clinical lab......

 

[Lee]

JM admitted that in the Toronto presentation she showed a slide that had a label that misrepresented what was in that lane. She did it intentionally, to make it 'less confusing.' That was her justification for it. That ACTION, BY DEFINITION, is data falsification. She falsely presented her data. She showed us one thing , ad falsely said that it was something else. She told us she did it on purpose, to be 'less confusing.'

She took a control sample, but told us it was a patient sample. On purpose, so as not to confuse us. Because apparently it would have been confusing not to see a negative patient sample. Which we actually didn't see, because SHE DID NOT SHOW US THE DATA FOR ONE. She only falsely told us she did.

That is data falsification. I don't care what words she used, or how she justified it - she described to us her false presentation of data. Yes, she copped to it.

 

[Bob]

@ Bob:

"you have continuously accused them of fraud in relation to 5AZA being used in the Western Blot "

Where? Link them. I think I said ONCE that in my opinion the overall picture looked like fraud. Once. As an opinion. What I've said is that if a scientist can't be trusted to tell all their experimental conditions, we cant know what their results mean. And I have said they falsified data - because THEY told us they falsified data.

You have continuously accused the authors of purposefully misleading the public, which sounds to me like you are accusing them of fraud.

As has been discussed at length, we do not know if what you accuse them of (relating to 5AZA) is based in fact, even though you keep repeating your opinions as fact. The detail could have been left out for many different reasons, including editorial reasons.
We simply do not know the significance of the 5AZA omission. As I said earlier, the 5AZA ommision only relates to a specific protein in one Western Blot image that was a small part of an extremelly complex study.

And the label change for the negative Western Blot result was hardly crime of the century, was it? I can't imagine it is never done by other researchers to save space. A negative result is a negative result. It's sloppy, but not misleading.

 

[currer]

Lee your own arguments are so questionable, tendentious and selective, that you cannot accuse anyone else of "fraud" with any credibility.

 

[Lee]

Bob,

The crime of the century? No. Data Falsification? Yes?

She told us, 'look, patient sample with no AZA, no virus. Patient sample with 5AZA, there is virus.'
But that is not what was on the gel she showed us, and she knew that it was not what she showed us. And she told us she did it on purpose.

Why is there such reluctance to acknowledge that this is a simple clear case of data falsification? The data was false. She showed us a control negative, and called it a patient negative, and she knew she was doing it. She told us she did it, and she told us she knew she was doing it.
Tht is Dta FAlsification.

 

[currer]

Lee, you are making unsubstantiated accusations against two reputable people who are not here to put their side of the case.

This is very distasteful.

 

[Bob]

Why is there such reluctance to acknowledge that this is a simple clear case of data falsification? The data was false. She showed us a control negative, and called it a patient negative, and she knew she was doing it.

Because a negative result was shown for a negative result.
It's a short-cut, but it's not an attempt to falsify the results.
If the correct image was included, it would show exactly the same thing - A negative result.
I agree that it is a short-cut, and it is sloppy, but I don't agree that it is an intentional attempt to mislead or falsify.

 

[Bob]

She told us, 'look, patient sample with no AZA, no virus. Patient sample with 5AZA, there is virus.'
But that is not what was on the gel she showed us, and she knew that it was not what she showed us. And she told us she did it on purpose.

They omitted a single detail, and like I said earlier, this particular part of the study was a very small part in an exceptionally complex study.
If the intention of the paper was to shown that the MLV p30 gag protein is present in patient samples, then that's exactly what they did.
Maybe this particular Western Blot test was something that they were required to do by Science's peer reviewers, and it was added to the paper in a hurry - we don't know.

So I'd rather wait for Science to come to their conclusions, and I very much doubt if "purposely misleading" is going to be their conclusion.
I'm not going to discuss this any more now - I've said what i've wanted to say, and the discussion is just going around in circles.

 

[Lee]

Bob, she said that in the slide. that was the point of that slide. 5AZA causes viral expression. that's what the slide was about.

And no, it is not the same thing. In science, you show the data. The actual data. It may or may not make a difference to the interpretation of the experiment. That doesn't matter - it makes a difference to whether you are showng the experiment you said you did.

YOU SAID ABOVE:
"I can't imagine it is never done by other researchers to save space. A negative result is a negative result. It's sloppy, but not misleading."

It actually is never done. Never. Ever. You show the actual data, confusing, messy, whatever, because in science the audience also gets to evaluate the data. Even if the researcher thinks there is nothing to evaluate Period.

You do not falsify your data. Ever. Not for reasons of convenience, not to save space, not to be less confusing. It matters, because even though both re negative, it matters to the interpretation of the experiment that its a negative control sample instead of a negative patient sample. And o show the data necesary for the audience to interpret the results for themselves. The actual data. Not the 'less confusing' data that you wish you had.

 

[biophile]

[Bob] wrote: I can't imagine it is never done by other researchers to save space. A negative result is a negative result. It's sloppy, but not misleading.

[Lee] wrote: It actually is never done. Never. Ever. You show the actual data, confusing, messy, whatever, because in science the audience also gets to evaluate the data. [...] And to show the data necesary for the audience to interpret the results for themselves.

Really, never ever? In at least 3 cognitive behavioural therapy studies (unless you don't consider such research "science" per se), objective outcome data of physical activity taken with actometers which just happened to challenge the authors' preconceptions about CBT increasing activity levels and was fundamentally important for interpreting the reported subjective outcomes, were excluded from the original published papers and only published years later as http://www.cfids-cab.org/rc/Wiborg.pdf !

Perhaps you were talking about biological science, but still, when the sentiment "never ever done in science" is used it opens itself up to rather easy contradiction with a single example, in this case at least 3 examples from a group of researchers who the ME/CFS community are supposed to "trust" even after omitting important data, not trusting them for doing so readily attracts accusations of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Meanwhile we are now supposed to reasonably "distrust" Mikovits for doing the same.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Unfortunately SilverBlade you are right. Its the potential for escalation that leads to the most problems, however what seems to be happening here is a compounding situation. Different purposes having the same outcome, eg if this turns out to be a race for patents, combined with the belief that the disease is not serious, combined with a trigger in vaccines, combined with personal dislike for ME patients or other professionals etc. All of these potential issues are relatively minor, yet if all work in sync the result could mean waiting another 20 years. And it will still take something major along the lines of another RV to break the cycle.

*nods*
Yup IMHO there is a huge conspiracy against ME, but of synergy not one specific block alone.
Many groups and otulooks involved: bias; needs; bigotry; criminality; resistance to change; etc, creating a "smothering blanket".
As I keep saying: If you want ot make enemies, try to change something!
Similar can be seen in the past regardinghow ethnic groups and females were seen; how the dangers of industrial materials/proceses or wealth generation's issues were ignored on a broad front and so on and so forth.

Fave example is I think, World War1: synergy of stupidity, hormones, arrogance and ignorance par excellence'!
That turned out well...not
Europe marched right on into that, wide-bloody-eyed and refusing to think, scientists too.
Science is not a god, it's carried out by people, it's therefore FLAWED, like it or not folks.
The sieve of Time and Repetitive Experimentation and Inquiry sifts out the chaff from the wheat, takes time, this issue WILL take time.
If anyone wants quick, sure answers, Theology is down the hall!

alas, meanwhile, we'll suffer and die, potential for out of control infection escalates, etc.
What was it old Einstein said? Ah yes..."There are only two infinites: the Universe and stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first!"
hehe

 

[Lee]

I give up.

biophile, the followup by Wiborg does not change the initial conclusions about CBT. The followup, using the actometer data, examined a hypothesis for WHY the CBT results were obtained, and concluded the they are not mediated by physical activity.

The initial papers concluded that CBT leads to small improvements on some measures. Wiborg follows up and concludes that the changes are not mediated by physical activity.

Where is the misconduct in that? Where are the CBT samples that got labeled as 'natural course' because it is less confusing? Where is the disclosure that they actually gave the CBT patients a drug and didn't bother to tell anyone in the initial papers?

Where is ANTHING similar to what happened here?

What I don't see anywhere in what you cited, is a case where they presented one set of data, labeled as if it were another. Or where they made up data. Or where they failed to describe what they did. Disagreeing with their experimental design or with their conclusions is NOT evidence for data falsification.

I find myself flabbergasted at a defense of continued trust in someone who has admitted making false statements, and justified it because she was speaking to patients and didn't want to confuse patients. Especially when that false statement is a violation of one of the fundamental precepts of science.