Yesterday made clear that it is going to be a circus. All that’s needed is cotton candy and clowns. Annette Whittemore is still selling fairy dust and the fate of humanity depends on whether Judy Mikovits was perfect or not. It’s more exciting than a high wire act. The CAA, the folks at the CDC, most of the scientific community are all gleeful. They wanted to turn the iconoclast into Joan of Arc. Since she isn’t a saint, the Salem Witch Trials is a better metaphor. If the scientific community had actually been impartial, they wouldn’t be so happy. They say it needs to be about the science, not the scientist, but in fact, it was, and is, very personal, not about the science at all.
I am not a lab scientist and cannot evaluate the slides written about in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune. I refuse to read ERV’s blog on general principles. Trine Tsouderos seems to be slumming for sources. And Annette Whittemore, who has no viable option but to blame Dr. Mikovits for everything that ever happened at the WPI, has turned to the journalist with an agenda. The debunker. Necessity makes strange bedfellows. Even discounting my own experience of Dr. Mikovits, which makes fraud as an explanation for an error extremely unlikely, it makes no sense that she would intentionally subject herself to the possibility of that fraud being detected by using the same slide again on purpose. The only person who has a reason right now to characterize a mistake, if one was made, as fraud, is the person trying to save the WPI. And maybe ERV and her ilk. Now all that money that was just raised at Vivant and the WPI annual fund raiser can be spent on lawyers to go after Dr. Mikovits, as they try to continue to lure patients down the yellow brick road. The baby in this divorce? The grants. An institute without a chief scientist and a scientist without a lab.
What’s left? A lab running a bunch of tests that I can order from Quest and LabCorp, for which insurance will pay. A CEO who, when I was there, had six people working for her, including a personal assistant, while Dr. Mikovits had two, and then one. A doctor working for himself. An awful lot of empty space. Less than no respect at the medical school. A post doc. A paper which looks like, one way or another, it will be completely discredited soon with everybody calling everybody a liar. Some GenBank sequences and related patents, which I know very little about, but which I imagine are enough to muddy the waters for everyone else, and therefore prevent work from seeing the light of day. Why would anyone want to get into this mess now? My fear is that the WPI will try to exist without substance to preserve their intellectual property. At this point, the counter on the top of the side bar is counting more lost time.
All this in the context of: I still think a gamma retroviral hypothesis is the best one we have.
Today’s song: Stuck In The Middle With You
>People need to look at Rich Van Konynenburg's methylation block theory. He's found 'almost all' patients with ME/CFS have a block in their methylation cycle.
>"So surely, before judging patients for "getting involved" in the conversation and making noise about being hurt, you can maybe see why patients are upset? And maybestop blaming the sick people for scientists and researchers not helping us? That's highly cruel." I don't blame the patients. I think that the insecurity that some patients are expressing in how they are perceived by the scientific community (excluding psychologists who you folks seem to really really hate – I won't try to sway you otherwise) is overstated. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I suspect, for what its worth. I also don't think it's fair to be angry at researchers in general for "not helping". Researchers must interface with reality – some problems are just inherently much more difficult to crack than others. Research outcomes reflect more than just competence, motivation, and the amount of money thrown at them.
"Conversely, one might ask why such a large portion of the community wants to throw Judy under the bus." I think Judy was driving the bus. "It wasn't Judy or Jamie or any other doctor or scientist who promised us a new era and treatment on the horizon, it was the WPI." I think Judy was promising it. And who do you think would have promised it to WPI? What does WPI know about their own research besides what their head researcher tells them?
I see a lot of people who confuse criticism of Mirkovits as criticism against them. I'm amazed at how she was able to convince a whole community that their identity was completely integrated with hers. This seems to be incredibly unfortunate for patients. The evidence very strongly points towards serious scientific misconduct with serious implications for past and future research. Anyone who told you that Mikovits and Ruscetti's XRMV work was showing promise was either mistaken or not telling the truth. Who told you guys this? Who was in the best position to know if it was the truth? "And maybestop blaming the sick people for scientists and researchers not helping us? That's highly cruel." It's cruel that you have been led to believe that you are the ones being blamed. I'm sure you have your own crosses to bear, don't carry JM's too.
MattK
>1,000,000 in the US with ME.
Only a handful of loons.
A few really stunning loons to be sure but very few given our numbers and our well earned frustration. But oh what a lot of crap a handful of loons can drop on everyone else.
I hear the psychologizers chuckling with happiness.
I agree Anonymous 8:49 –sad… and stupid.
>For those in our community who knew her…Amberlin Wu passed away yesterday. Some knew her as Muddi Puppy. She was a very gifted artist and a generous soul. Her blog is here:
http://www.bealightcfsawareness.blogspot.com/
>For a little historical perspective on the Dr. Mikovits situation, here is another example of a researcher whose work was met with immediate widespread harsh ridicule and charges of 'fraud' which also resulted in his being shown the door by his boss…
————————
"…When he finally told colleagues about his discovery, he was met with dismissal and ridicule. His claims caused such embarrassment that his boss asked him to leave the research group. The results drew a similar hostile response when he finally published them in Physical Review Letters in November 1984. "I got an angry letter from Linus Pauling…"
————————
So just who was this poor sap???
His name is Daniel Shechtman, who just won this years Nobel Prize in chemistry for the fore-mentioned controversial research:
http://tinyurl.com/3cv432w
>Thank you, Khaly.
"For those in our community who knew her…Amberlin Wu passed away yesterday. Some knew her as Muddi Puppy. She was a very gifted artist and a generous soul. Her blog is here:
http://www.bealightcfsawareness.blogspot.com/"
Now this is sad!
>There are a few holes in this analogy.
1) Shechtman did not falsify data.
2) Mikovits was not met instantly wiht hostility and ridicule. For example, check out Abbie's first post on XMRV and the Lombardi et al. paper – she was cautiously accepting.
In Shechtman's case we have revolutionary research that is initially dismissed then later accepted through replication of the results. In Mikovits and Ruscetti's case it's the opposite. Initially positive, getting more negative as other scientists can't replicate, evidence of contamination emerges, and fudged data comes to light. Somehow I don't think a Nobel is in the offing.
MattK
>Dr Mikovits was first met by Dr Coffin. His lab would be one of the first to need investigating for why HGRVs are so highly related to the MuLVs he has studied.
After that it was Simon Wessely and Myra McClure with a paper that had no relationship to the Lombardi experiments and where the incorrect rumor regarding the cohort began. Such was the way it continued.
Dr Frank Ruscetti and Dr Jidy Mikovits have not falsified data, but the Lombardi data is now clearly compromised.
>Here is the real and serious issue at hand. We have animal retroviruses that have gotten into humans. HIV was the first we knew about, but there are others. Do they cause cancer? Do they cause CFS or ALS? This must be studied. The human race cannot afford to assume ONLY MICE GET SICK FROM THIS. since some vaccines are developed in mouse tissue and these mice have unseen retroviruses, then it is quite possible the retroviruses are now in the vaccines. (And Abbie needs to be careful working in her lab.)
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/5/article/15955/
Frequent detection of infectious xenotropic murine leukemia virus (XMLV) in human cultures established from mouse xenografts
Our findings of infectivity of XMLV-positive supernatant fluids demonstrated that XMLV can readily infect other human cultures without presence of mouse cells or other aiding factors, indicating that these viruses are highly infectious.
Retroviruses have been associated with multiple diseases including solid and hematologic malignancies, AIDS as well as with non-malignant diseases. The high susceptibility of human cells to infection with XMLV, the high levels of reverse tran- scriptase activity present in culture supernatant fluids and the demonstrated infectivity of the shed virions suggest that SUCH VIRUSES MAY PRESENT POTENTIAL BIOHAZARDS TO LABORATORY PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN CELL CULTURE FACILITIES or to those handling human xenografts. In addition, the effects of the integrated provirus or the released virions on the biology of infected tumor cells are unknown.
>To Jennifer and Aaron: what do you think could be causing that methylation block of host genes?
Does it happen through Divine Intervention? Or possibly something like retrovirus, which are known to interfere with host gene methylation, and to cause gene mutations?
>Now we have the Raw data and original materials of Lombardi et al. in hostile hands claims of multiple copies and altered images will become the norm
RRM is in all probability one of the hostile group which now possesses the data.
No doubt we will now have claims that one of the western blots is actually an image of Donald Duck.
This is leading up to providing enough "evidence" to justify the recommendation already made by Coffin and Stoyle to the editors of science that the Lombardi paper be retracted.
The most likely date is October the 13th.
The CAA appear to have been informed although the decision has not been made!!!
>gammaretroviral proviral latency is maintained by methylation of bases at the 5 prime end
remove the methyl groups and transcription ensues
and proteins are made where there would otherwise be none
simple really
>Yep, it is beginning to look like a load of crazies.
Please leave it alone, it's getting too silly.
Let Dr. Jamie write her blogs and those of us who wish to follow her can do so in a dignified atmosphere. If you don't agree with her blogs, why are you here?
Sick for ten years and getting sicker by your cruel comments.
>To accuse someone of falsifying data it would be prudent to have the proof in your own hands. Remember we could be talking liable here.
>Um, it's not like these allegations are coming out of nowhere. In case you haven't heard, there's an official investigation taking place.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/xmrv-researcher-fired.html?rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>>The human race cannot afford to assume ONLY MICE GET SICK FROM THIS.
There's no evidence that these viruses make mice or any other animal sick.
Nothing else in your post is consistent with what is known either. You're either confused or making things up.
>Yes official investigation is taking place.
Should we wait for those results first.
Or is it different in the USA? Are you are guilty until proven innocent?
>What worries me is that Coffin as the peer reviewer of the Lombardi study has access to all the original data and drs Mikovits and ruscetti do not.Given the antagonism displayed by Coffin and stoyle towards HGRV research the possibility of manipulation of the original lombardi data is obvious.Coffin and Stoyle,s credibility now depends on HGRVs being declared as contaminants.
They have a clear conflict of interest and they are the people who have advised the science editors to retract the lombardi paper
This reeks of corruption
If billy on me/cfs forums did not receive a copy of the original Lombardi gel from Annette at the WPI then it must have been from John Coffin
ps if the above poster does not realize that mulv and related viruses cause neuroinflammatory neurodegenerative and cancer in other species then he or she is a complete idiot/moron
>@Anonymous:
"There's no evidence that these viruses make mice or any other animal sick." You are joking, right? RIGHT?
The rest of Paula's post is common knowledge, i.e. it is common knowledge that biological products are open to contamination from animal retroviruses, depending on type of cell/animal used in the production. This type of contamination has been recorded many times.
btw in case you haven't noticed, the last few paragraphs of Paula's post are quotes from a published paper.
>A sad situation is being inflamed by comments from supporters and detractors of Judy, Jamie and WPI. It is not helpful.
WPI should have explained the problem immediately. Now the wound has festered. We should take a deep breath and allow some time to pass.
Let us look to the future, to new horizons. Mount Sinai has opened today a new Center for treatment and research, with Dr Derek Enlander at the helm, they have recruited Ila Singh from Utah, and Eric Schadt the reknown geneticist and a new virologist. Maybe Judy and Jamie could work alongside them. Enlander has for years researched treatment into the methylation cycle, and is now involved in Ampligen and GcMaf.
>Please go to the link I posted and read the entire scientific article. It puts "lab contamination" in a whole nuther light, and it is a dark light, not pretty. (Yes, most of what I posted was a small but significant section of a published research paper.)
As to whether the infected mice are carriers or sick, that is irrelevant. The question is this: What happens when a human lab worker gets infected? And there's another question: Under what circumstances might humans get infected with retroviruses from animals? For instance, we had a whole bunch of cats who all died of feline leukemia. Our vet assured us that it is not transmissible to humans as we have natural resistance. But that may not be the case for every retrovirus carried by animals.
We do know that there is a study where monkeys were infected with XMRV and got sick. Maybe we should put the "red false positive T shirts" on them. Would that be funny? These folks have been watching "Saturday Night Live" too many years.
>Gerwyn said…
I frankly admit that I was misled about VIPdx by people I trusted and apologise for any distress caused. I said what I said in good faith but was wrong
>The only grounds for the forcible retraction of Lombardi et al., is fraud. Thus Coffin and Stoye must be at least tactically be accusing Dr Ruscetti of fraud as he performed all the western blots.
Now as to the question of fraud I invite the reader to form an opinion of the data presented in Paprotka et al. The paper that claims VP62/XMRV was created when human prostate cancer cells were xenografted into mice, if the early xenografts were VP62/XMRV free and the later xenografts contained VP62/XMRV.
1) Failure to name the only assay used to screen the later xenografts. Results of which are mixed together in Fig. 2E, but are said in the paper to be a PCR assay. At CROI Pathak admitted that this was an RT-PCR assay on RNA. Instead the only 2 assays named in the paper are PCR and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR).
2) Failure to determine if the later xenografts came from the human prostrate cancer cell line CWR22Rv1 and if they were contaminated with cells from another cell line. This is despite testing other xenografts and cells to ensure the timeline of CWR22Rv1 was available and not contaminated.
3) Failure to base the results of the study and conclusion on the only assay that had a predetermined sensitivity (1-3 copies per 100 cells). The sensitivity having been determined after this assay DID detect VP62/XMRV in the early xenografts, two strains of lab mice and derived cell lines, 22Rv1 and CWR-R1
4) Failure to realize that other regions of VP62/XMRV require much more sensitive assays than the only assay with a predetermined sensitivity, the quantitative real-time PCR.
5) Failure to predetermine the sensitivity of the PCR assay on which all the results were based. Which then at best detected 2000 copies per 100 cells in the derived cell lines, but not in the early xenografts.
6) Failure to objectively name the 1 mouse virus discovered. Instead they choose a political name and called it PreXMRV-2, despite them not knowing if it could be a descendant of VP62/XMRV or even a cousin.
7) Failure to detect PreXMRV-1 in a single source. Instead it was created from sections of unidentified virus from 3 sources and therefore does not exist.
8) Failure to screen any wild mice for VP62/XMRV or PreXMRV-2.
9) Only screening 15 lab mice for PreXMRV-2.
10) Only screening 89 lab mice for VP62/ XMRV.
11) Stating that one set of primers used for the PCR assay, on which the results and conclusions were based, could also detect PreXMRV-1, despite having never detected this hypothetical virus from a single source. That same PCR with those primers then identified positives in the early xenografts, but was claimed to be PreXMRV-1, even though that assay could detect VP62/XMRV and PreXMRV-1 had still never been shown to exist.
>Monkeys were infected but "sacrificed" before they showed symptoms. Hard to tell whether they ever would have gotten sick.
J Virol. 2011 May;85(9):4547-57. Epub 2011 Feb 16.
Infection, viral dissemination, and antibody responses of rhesus macaques exposed to the human gammaretrovirus XMRV.
Onlamoon N, Das Gupta J, Sharma P, Rogers K, Suppiah S, Rhea J, Molinaro RJ, Gaughan C, Dong B, Klein EA, Qiu X, Devare S, Schochetman G, Hackett J Jr, Silverman RH, Villinger F.
Source
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
Xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus (XMRV) was identified in association with human prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome. To examine the infection potential, kinetics, and tissue distribution of XMRV in an animal model, we inoculated five macaques with XMRV intravenously. XMRV established a persistent, chronic disseminated infection, with low transient viremia and provirus in blood lymphocytes during acute infection. Although undetectable in blood after about a month, XMRV viremia was reactivated at 9 months, confirming the chronicity of the infection. Furthermore, XMRV Gag was detected in tissues throughout, with wide dissemination throughout the period of monitoring. Surprisingly, XMRV infection showed organ-specific cell tropism, infecting CD4 T cells in lymphoid organs including the gastrointestinal lamina propria, alveolar macrophages in lung, and epithelial/interstitial cells in other organs, including the reproductive tract. Of note, in spite of the intravenous inoculation, extensive XMRV replication was noted in prostate during acute but not chronic infection even though infected cells were still detectable by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in prostate at 5 and 9 months postinfection. Marked lymphocyte activation occurred immediately postinfection, but antigen-specific cellular responses were undetectable. Antibody responses were elicited and boosted upon reexposure, but titers decreased rapidly, suggesting low antigen stimulation over time. Our findings establish a nonhuman primate model to study XMRV replication/dissemination, transmission, pathogenesis, immune responses, and potential future therapies.
PMID: 21325416 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3126245 [Available on 2011/11/1]
>The above proves how stupid it is to look for a gammaretrovirus in blood with PCR when it is not reliably present in that compartment in an infected host
>chris New York said…
A sad situation is being inflamed by comments from supporters and detractors of Judy, Jamie and WPI. It is not helpful.
WPI should have explained the problem immediately. Now the wound has festered. We should take a deep breath and allow some time to pass.
Let us look to the future, to new horizons. Mount Sinai has opened today a new Center for treatment and research, with Dr Derek Enlander at the helm, they have recruited Ila Singh from Utah, and Eric Schadt the reknown geneticist and a new virologist. Maybe Judy and Jamie could work alongside them. Enlander has for years researched treatment into the methylation cycle, and is now involved in Ampligen and GcMaf.
problems with the methylation cycle can be caused by a retroviral infection
methylation cycle blockade does not even begin to explain the symptom spectrum of ME
and of course it leaves the question what can cause dysfunction in the methylation cycle
what else nothing
we could of course use the biomedical equivalent of god did it and invoke genetics as an explanation
now what could possibly influence gene expression?
>"Let us look to the future, to new horizons. Mount Sinai has opened today a new Center for treatment and research, with Dr Derek Enlander at the helm, they have recruited Ila Singh from Utah, and Eric Schadt the reknown geneticist and a new virologist. Maybe Judy and Jamie could work alongside them."
Right, that's going to happen, after "Jamie and Judy" accused Singh of conspiring to hide XMRV.
At this point, neither of them have any respect left in the scientific community at all. The only support they have left are the few patients still reading this blog.
>at the poster of the following
Right, that's going to happen, after "Jamie and Judy" accused Singh of conspiring to hide XMRV.
singh used an unvalidated assay when she could have used one which had previously detected a Human MLV related gammaretrovirus in people with prostate cancer. Judy and Jamie rightly pointed out this gross departure from the scientific method.She even used a spindown procedure which would have detatched the SU element of the env protein which is only attached via hydrogen bonds.this rendered her serology test meaningless.This appalling science was also rightly criticised. As a professor once stated trust the science not the scientist.Singh,s science was appalling and was rightly criticized
>Anon 12:03 PM,
I'm a doctor. If my patients are happy with me, that's good enough for me. I am obviously not interested in pleasing the scientific community. They are the ones that have failed us. The burden of proof is on them. Not me. They need to get done with their decades long coffee break and get to work. Making this about the success or failure of one scientist is completely and utterly ludicrous.
Jamie
>@Anonymous: "Monkeys were infected but "sacrificed" before they showed symptoms. Hard to tell whether they ever would have gotten sick."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, there are many papers showing pathology and disease process in animals infected by gammaretroviruses. To conclude that one of their family is harmless based on one short-term study is beyond silly. Secondly, that paper looked at XMRV only…
>Response from Gerwyn:
Question: Do you believe the results from VIPDx are valid?
With the information I now have no I do not believe they were valid. Which means that no one can declare the blood supply safe as false negatives and positives are equally likely.
The VIPDx test was the only PCR test capable of detecting gammaretrovirus in the BWG.
All other assays were other failed (Lo's) or unvalidated.
Thus there was no reliable way of determining that the negative controls were negative in the first place.
Based on this unreliability in testing methods and in the interests of blood safety the Simmons paper must be retracted immediately.
Otherwise a tragedy of unimaginable proportions is likely.
permission to repost
>Anonymous: "Monkeys were infected
if you read the paper you will see that the VP-62 clone became undetectable in blood by PCR after the acute phase but was readily detectable by PCR in tissues.The antibody response also dissapeared
Gammaretroviruses infect follicular dendritic cells and destroy their functionality hence no immune response can be maintained
>The only grounds for the forcible retraction of Lombardi et al., is fraud. Thus Coffin and Stoye must be at least tactically be accusing Dr Ruscetti of fraud as he performed all the western blots.
Now as to the question of fraud I invite the reader to form an opinion of the data presented in Paprotka et al. The paper that claims VP62/XMRV was created when human prostate cancer cells were xenografted into mice, if the early xenografts were VP62/XMRV free and the later xenografts contained VP62/XMRV.
1) Failure to name the only assay used to screen the later xenografts. Results of which are mixed together in Fig. 2E, but are said in the paper to be a PCR assay. At CROI Pathak admitted that this was an RT-PCR assay on RNA. Instead the only 2 assays named in the paper are PCR and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR).
2) Failure to determine if the later xenografts came from the human prostrate cancer cell line CWR22Rv1 and if they were contaminated with cells from another cell line. This is despite testing other xenografts and cells to ensure the timeline of CWR22Rv1 was available and not contaminated.
3) Failure to base the results of the study and conclusion on the only assay that had a predetermined sensitivity (1-3 copies per 100 cells). The sensitivity having been determined after this assay DID detect VP62/XMRV in the early xenografts, two strains of lab mice and derived cell lines, 22Rv1 and CWR-R1
4) Failure to realize that other regions of VP62/XMRV require much more sensitive assays than the only assay with a predetermined sensitivity, the quantitative real-time PCR.
5) Failure to predetermine the sensitivity of the PCR assay on which all the results were based. Which then at best detected 2000 copies per 100 cells in the derived cell lines, but not in the early xenografts.
6) Failure to objectively name the 1 mouse virus discovered. Instead they choose a political name and called it PreXMRV-2, despite them not knowing if it could be a descendant of VP62/XMRV or even a cousin.
7) Failure to detect PreXMRV-1 in a single source. Instead it was created from sections of unidentified virus from 3 sources and therefore does not exist.
8) Failure to screen any wild mice for VP62/XMRV or PreXMRV-2.
9) Only screening 15 lab mice for PreXMRV-2.
10) Only screening 89 lab mice for VP62/ XMRV.
11) Stating that one set of primers used for the PCR assay, on which the results and conclusions were based, could also detect PreXMRV-1, despite having never detected this hypothetical virus from a single source. That same PCR with those primers then identified positives in the early xenografts, but was claimed to be PreXMRV-1, even though that assay could detect VP62/XMRV and PreXMRV-1 had still never been shown to exist.
>Send this to Science for investigation. Nothing to loose!
Robin
>Everyone should send it in and demand an investigation.
>perhaps an open letter to the science editors would be appropiate
>Yes, Gerwyn. Please, please submit this to Science. Or Nature. Perhaps then you will realise what utter nonsense you have been spouting for quite some time now.
Submit it if you've got the guts.
>Hold on, I thought the party line was "There is no such thing as the VP-62 sequence in nature.", according to Gerwyn.
How can Paprotka et al be wrong when it showed that there is no such thing as VP62 in nature?
I'm confused.
>Enough! No more personal attacks! No more "your stupid" posts (error intended). Acting like children. Not surprising, since we are in the midst of a divorce, but really, people. We have bigger problems. Like the only friends we have are going down in a ball of flames. You aren't going to solve it here. Discussion fine, but the gratuitous insults need to stop. There were some wonderful, constructive posts yesterday. I actually thought at one point that there was some chance that this could end up bringing us together as a community. All we have is each other. Nobody else cares. If you don't have something meaningful to say, don't say it at all.
Jamie
>"Hold on, I thought the party line was "There is no such thing as the VP-62 sequence in nature.", according to Gerwyn.
How can Paprotka et al be wrong when it showed that there is no such thing as VP62 in nature?
I'm confused."
Cells infected with the clone created in 2006?
>You said it Dr DJ. I hope Gerwyn is listening.
>"Dear Sir, We haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about
As the subject matter is biochemical testing and chemistry in general I would not expect a biologist or more accurately a parasitologist to understand
that of course is the problem and editor with no direct understanding of the subject matter is being advised to retract a paper with a vested interest in having that paper retracted
how many variables do you think determine whether a PCR assay can detect its actual target sequence?
ask the relevant editor of science if she actually knows .If she does not then she cannot objectively evaluate the quality of the Lombardi Data
>sorry the following
hat of course is the problem and editor with no direct understanding of the subject matter is being advised to retract a paper with a vested interest in having that paper retracted
should read
being advised to retract a paper by people with a vested interest in having that paper retracted
>Coffins need to force a retraction cannot be separated from the problems in his paper Paprotka et al. (2011). Having not given any details for the correct assay used to screen the later xenografts, Coffin has a conflict of interest in what now occurs with Lombardi et al. This should be a concern to the Science editors.
>@Anon 3:42 PM
Do you agree that the video from CROI shows that Paprotka et al. failed to name a RT-PCR assay that was used in that paper?
>Gerwyn,
With the greatest of respect I AM CALLING YOUR BLUFF.
If this is all as serious as you make out, why on earth would you NOT submit these apparently detailed concerns to a journal ?
Seriously. Why would you NOT do so ?
>@Anon 3:50 PM
Have you read the paper? Have you watched the CROI presentation?
Once you have, come back and answer if you are writing to Science to complain.
>Gerwyn's entire debating repertoire :
1. Repeat the same thing ad nauseam in the hope someone believes it.
2. ALWAYS change the subject when someone makes things tricky for you (see above).
Why would you NOT submit this to a journal ? Could it be because you are afraid they will publicly point out that you simply don't know what you are trying to talk about ?
I hope anyone who reads this asks themselves the same question : "Hmmm. If Gerwyn feels so strongly and this is so important, why would he NOT submit it to a journal?"
Why indeed…..
>>We do know that there is a study where monkeys were infected with XMRV and got sick. Maybe we should put the "red false positive T shirts" on them. Would that be funny? These folks have been watching "Saturday Night Live" too many years.
Once again, this is not correct. The monkeys were infected but did not get sick. Whether they ever would have gotten sick if they'd not been sacrificed after 9 months is unknown. Maybe they would have, maybe not.
>@Anonymous October 6, 2011 4:10 PM
It is very clear why he doesn't. Gerwyn simply knows way more than any editor of any (retrovirology) journal and that's why this very, very complex idea of some scientist omitting data from a crucial experiment, will not be understood by any editor in the world.
My personal theory is that Pathak just meant room temperature. ;-)