I wasn’t suggesting disagreement is wrong, but pointing out that there were two opposing views which could not in ‘fact’ both be accommodated. Either the tests were ‘experimental’ (with all the ethical problems that brings) and patients were or were not made aware of that status, or the tests were (in the minds of WPI and VIPdx) not experimental and no claim was made to patients that was the case.
There are both general and specific concerns at issue. Mikovits has claimed (subsequent to her employment at WPI being terminated) that she expressed various concerns about the VIPdx tests – but in the claims made public she has focussed on the issue of whether the VIPdx tests were effectively reproducible of the work that supported the Lombardi et al 2009 paper. This is a non sequitur because Lombardi et al 2009 was based on an hypothesis that has been multiply falsified. Mikovits surely must recognise that without a wide range of confirmatory studies, no clinical validation could take place ? It is irrelevant whether Dr Mikovits has direct involvement with VIPdx, she had to have known at the point that commercial tests we announced, that these could have no clinical or diagnostic value.
The situation you encountered was entirely corrupt and we can only hope that patients will complain to NHS managers or the BMC when these abuses of position occur. The issue of ordering is significant – because VIPdx claimed that ordering was only possible through a doctor – it would be of great benefit to all interested parties if patients who did get tests without going through a doctor could post online documentation that shows that VIPdx were not abiding by their claimed limitation.
I thought they would. Foggy mind and all. So if someone takes an antiviral and it turns out they don't have a virus, it's a chancy thing to take until you know for sure. This is, of course, a rhetorical question.
Barb C.:>)
