Let the lawyer games begin. My blog “Square One”, of October 1, was unfortunately prophetic. The WPI is in fact using money donated by patients to pay lawyers to sue Dr. Mikovits. One more in a very long line of horrible decisions. I am truly incredulous. This entire fiasco is doing great harm to the patient community, the extent of which is unknowable at this time. The research is destroyed. The notebooks and specimens are potentially compromised.
As I finished that last paragraph, a friend sent me Annette Whittemore’s blog just posted. I really don’t know how she keeps a straight face. She’s suing her chief scientist and the principle investigator on the institute’s grants, after termination without cause, to obtain notebooks and flash drives that Dr. Mikovits apparently does not have, since she was locked out of her lab suddenly and unexpectedly. I would say that as the “the guardian of this property”, Mrs. Whittemore has failed pretty miserably. And now she is using a little of the millions of unaccounted for dollars to sue Dr. Mikovits. I thought I understood the depth of the incompetence, but it just keeps getting worse. She thinks the patient community is going to be OK with this? Business as usual? Wait for the WPI to figure out a cure, without a chief scientist, and oh, please send more money? Who is she kidding? Sorry Annette, now we have to think about a legal defense fund for Judy!
I was going to write some good news, to follow the bad news, but I think I’ll write that when I’m not feeling like I’ve been slimed.
>gammaretroviruses have been detected replicating in the blood of people with ME. This class of retrovirus is well known for causing neuroimmune disease and cancer in other hosts and thus to hypothesise that they are a cause of neuroimmune disease and cancer in humans is perfectly reasoneable. The claim that this hypothesis is wholly unreasonable is false
No one yet knows whether these retroviruses are the cause of neuroimmune disease or cancer in humans but to claim emphatically that they cant be is disengenious
This hypothesis needs testing. The people with the required funding are unwilling to repeat the methodology used in Lombardi et al. The use of this methodology and the use of patients which display the cytokine and chemokine abnormalities which have been reported in people infected with ZMRVs would settle the issue
those with the power to take this step refuse to do so but instead rely on novel untested assay and continue to post their conclusions as facts when they are nothing but hypotheses created by confirmation bias
>So even though we all know there is no evidence that the prostate cancer patient from which 22Rv1 cells were developed was not infected with a HGRV. You now admit a lab created virus does infect people. And how many times has this happened prior to those studies? How do you know those children in those multiple studies didn't then infect other humans. How about testing their blood wwig those clinically invalidated assays.
This is proof HGRVs are known to infect humans and are already proven to have caused disease. We can also say there is no evidence the assays in the negative studies looking for VP62 those assays could detect HGRVs in the blood of those children. I agree retrovirology cannot be called a science whilst they refuse to clinically validate and do not act like scientists. What are they afraid of?
>Again, you sound much more like a bunch of untrained lawyers with a very weak case trying desperately to establish a reasonable doubt, rather than objective scientists and patients seeking the truth. Good luck with that approach.
>@Anonymous November 18, 2011 4:57 AM
"HIV and HTLV were confirmed with assays optimised to positives. RRM you you really have no idea what you are talking about."
You are wrong.
It's pretty telling you (or anybody else) haven't come up with a proper source to back up this assertion after more than a year of asking for it, though I suppose you've tricked some very sick and desperate patients into believing this.
"Ila Singh, Vincent Racaniello and Dr Mikovits have all publicly said assays must be clinically validated."
Ila Sing indeed said such a thing. If you read back on the WSJ blog (my Amy), you'll see that I instantly criticized her for it. More importantly, she changed this position and she now cpmpletely agrees with me.
I'm not sure in what context Racaniello said this (I believe it was over a year ago), but he is currently clearly of the opinion that many robust validation attempts after that (e.g. Knox et. al, Shin et al.) were very good studies, without using supposed clinical positives.
You are thus clearly cherry picking a couple of quotes from people that seemingly support your position but actually don't.
And as for Mikovits talking about clinical positives…well, that is very convincing…
Having clinical positives around sure helped Mikovits's and Ruscetti's performances for the Blood Working Group!
>I think I will let the reader judge the merit of the post above and the motive of the person making it
>RRM says: "Talk about a logical problem…if there is no clinical HGRV, it's pretty hard to show you can find it when it's there."
Perhaps you missed my post above where I've taken the liberty of directing you to a few highly credentialed (that's what you care about right?) researchers who could help you find clinical positives confirmed by methods other than PCR. I believe I left out Switzer who also has clinically positive tissue samples.
The rest of your comment is the same tired fallacious appeal to history you love to repeat. Even if your historical claim were true, your reliance on this purported "fact" is effectively saying: "We've never followed sound logic before so why should we be expected to start now?"
RRM says: "I can detect pink elephant virus in the blood of online commenters. In fact, I have detected this virus using my iPCR assay in 80% of the above comments. Other labs cannot find anything, but their assay just stinks. How can these other frauds claim their method can detect my pink elephant virus if they have never checked to see if it can? Their 0/0 results are clearly a failure to detect the virus, instead of evidence of me being wrong."
It's difficult to enumerate all of the fallacies that you managed to pack into this paragraph, but I shall give it the old college try:
1) You (the narrator) harbor the implicit–though very clear–initial assumption that this virus doesn't exist. Because the "0/0" studies confirm this bias, you (the narrator) gleefully overlook a number of flaws and inadequacies to present this confirming evidence as conclusive: Did these researchers attempt to follow the iPCR exactly? Did these researchers attempt to collaborate with (instead of mock) the original discoverer to iron out any unforeseen methodological differences? Did these researchers attempt to use use other methods (again with close and good faith collaboration) used to detect the virus? The fact that you (the narrator) run roughshod over these and other pertinent questions makes this (ironically) an archetype of the exact confirmation bias displayed toward the HGRV hypothesis.
2) This scenario is an example of the logical fallacy of false analogy as your "distillation" leaves out many crucial elements of its real-world counterpart. There is not just one researcher finding this virus. There is not just one "magical" method finding evidence for the virus (PCR, WB, IHC, serology, EMG). To the extent that your analogy superficially props up your case, it is thanks entirely to your stripping it of relevant details.
3) This analogy employs a number of straw men (or false representations of the position you are supposedly refuting). For example, your characterization of proponents of the HGRV hypothesis–that we think 0/0 studies are "clearly a failure to detect the virus, instead of evidence of me being wrong"–is crucially inaccurate. You have twisted the predominant claim that 0/0 studies *have not logically or empirically ruled out* "failure to detect the virus" into a false representation of fanatical certainty (a fanaticism that, ironically, you continually employ to trash this hypothesis).
>As usual the anon above Gerwyn has NO argument. Good luck with that blood transfusion from a person screened for HIV with an assay not clinically validated! Good luck to the human race when this is the state of what once could be called science and must now be referred to as a cult, with not one shred of evidence that people are not infected with the viruses discovered by Mikovits and Ruscetti. Will you be spending money on shrines and sermons to preach your pseudo-scientific clap trap?
>So we have the immaculate contamination, built upon the immaculate recombinate virus (that shush… Silverman made in 2006), and patients tested with immaculate assays that just work cos they say so and will stick their fingers in theirs ears and cry if you point out the facts, and we have this coming from people who keep having mouse contamination so their labs cannot be said to be immaculate. LOL
>@Gerwyn, sorry I won't let that last one pass. I have no dog in this fight. The only motive I have is to see science and medicine do what it is supposed to do, which is to help people live better. That requires objectivity. You and a few others, on the other hand, jumped to a hasty conclusion on limited data, and now absolutely refuse to even reconsider that conclusion in the face of a plethora of new evidence to the contrary. So the real question is not what's my motive, it's what is yours? Again, good luck, I think you will need it with that close minded approach.
>Everyone has a dog in this fight. So please sell the phoney concern elsewhere. The anon above has again provided no evidence for their position. The only objective positions rests on clinical validation. It does not matter if there are a million more wasteful unscientific studiies if they cannot show their assays would have worked. So the question is what is your motive, mine is to not be sick and stop HGRVs spreading. No dog – don't make me laugh. What's conspiracy theorist you are.
>Jamie, my last post doesn't show up. Can you check the spam filter? Or is it possible that it was too long (though I didn't see an error)? Thanks.
>According to some people you only have to create an assay and finding a virus is easy. No proof required that an assay works. If that was not stupid enough these same people keep ignoring what Singh, Mikovits and Racaniello are on record as stating. That you must optimise to clinical positives! The negative studies did not and the people taking part in the Lipkin study are not. The Lipkin study is declared a failure before it is complete and science must be allowed to progress without deliberate political interferance.
>many patients dont get the science,
so why did so many feel that xmrv sounded like teh big IT.
I think its because as details continued to come out, particaularly where it was found in the monkeys, and the possable effects that may have on a body.
Everything that has been said about what XMRV cud do, seemed to encompass the mass of symptoms that have developed overs years across the different systems in my body.
I have yet to see another explanation that can do this.
Oh it also links the MS cancer and ASD in my family.
fly
>To change the subject back to the subject of this blog, the civil case against Dr. Judy Mikovits, I'm wondering what evidence there is of a break in. Surely the alleged theft was reported to the police? If not, why not?
Bear in mind that Judy did not know she was to be fired until she was out of the lab, and therefore had no motive that co-incided with opportunity. Bear in mind Lilly Meehan's evidence that there were no such materials in Judy's car on her return home from Reno. It seems likely that Judy is innocent of the charge, and if there has not even been the logical step of a police report and investigation, it ia hard to understand why a judge would even issue such a writ against her.
A police investigation is in order, to determine the circumstances and facts available in the case. I believe a police investigation would soon exonerate Judy. How can you return materials you don't have? Truly, they are trying to put her between a rock and a hard place.
Jane Clout
>"Access to tissue and laboratory resources for analytical and clinical validation of an assay to predict response to treatment or disease outcome"
The National cancer institute Clinical Assay Development Program (CADP) requires clinical validated assays as does ever other major health organisation in the world.
>"The NCI’s new Clinical Assay Development Program (CADP) has been designed to identify promising tests, assess the needs for further development, and provide services to facilitate optimization of analytical performance and to establish clinical validity so that the clinical utility of the assay can be evaluated in well-designed clinical studies."
>Misunderstood Polymathic Genius Rennaisance Man seeks Internet Home: clearly, Gerwyn needs a place in the Blogosphere to call his own. Gerwyn needs his own blog.
From this blog's homepage, there is a link on the upper right corner that will take you to the Blogger.com sign-up page, from which you can sign in, configure, and be underway in no time with your very own real-life genuine personal blog all to yourself!
The advantages would be many: Gerwyn would finally have a permanent home on the Intertubes, on an equal footing with his ilk and peers such as Dr. Deckoff-Jones, the Phoenix Rising crowd, the ME/CSF Forum faction (how come he no more post over there anymore?), TWiV's Vincent Racinello, the Bad Science crew, and yes, even his archnemesis, ERV! No more rampaging through others' blogs with incoherent repetitive ramblings and ponderous missives; your many followers, friends and foes would know where to find you without having to play the popular guessing game "is this new poster The Gerwyn or just a different new random idiot?" ; Gerwyn would own it, it would be his to manage as he sees fit, no Cowardly Anonymous Posters unless he wanted it, no moderation or pre-moderation or censorship (unless, of course, he wanted it); he could ban those who offend him as he hath been banned by others; no more gypsy flouncey refugee wandering around between sites, no need to maintain a burdensome portfolio of varied noms-de-blog (e.g. GJO, Darkow, Gob987, CODA, Kipper, etc.); he could set the agenda, establish the discourse, and stop being an annoying invasive viral parasite carpetbagging hijacker. I'm sure that many of his loyal minions (V99 or Pumpkin or Tango or Jace or whatever) could help him set it up and keep it running. The owners/operators of the other blogs he periodically inflicts himself upon would benefit, because, frankly, he takes up way too much room with bulky, mostly inpenetrable and incomprehensible, albeit unique, Brobdingnagian commentary. Clearly, a "win-win".
How come Gerwyn has not yet staked out his own little corner of the internet? The time has come. Make a stand. Plant your banner, rig for sea, man battlestations, make ready to take on all comers, from Coffin to Wesslley, from PACE to Paprotka and Pathak–The Gerwyn has finally arrived!
>AnonymousNonRetrovirologist said…
Misunderstood Polymathic Genius Rennaisance Man seeks Internet Home: clearly, Gerwyn needs a place in the Blogosphere to call his own. Gerwyn needs his own blog.
From this blog's homepage, there is a link on the upper right corner that will take you to the Blogger.com sign-up page, from which you can sign in, configure, and be underway in no time with your very own real-life genuine personal blog all to yourself!
The advantages would be many: Gerwyn would finally have a permanent home on the Intertubes, on an equal footing with his ilk and peers such as Dr. Deckoff-Jones, the Phoenix Rising crowd, the ME/CSF Forum faction (how come he no more post over there anymore?), TWiV's Vincent Racinello, the Bad Science crew, and yes, even his archnemesis, ERV! No more rampaging through others' blogs with incoherent repetitive ramblings and ponderous missives; your many followers, friends and foes would know where to find you without having to play the popular guessing game "is this new poster The Gerwyn or just a different new random idiot?" ; Gerwyn would own it, it would be his to manage as he sees fit, no Cowardly Anonymous Posters unless he wanted it, no moderation or pre-moderation or censorship (unless, of course, he wanted it); he could ban those who offend him as he hath been banned by others; no more gypsy flouncey refugee wandering around between sites, no need to maintain a burdensome portfolio of varied noms-de-blog (e.g. GJO, Darkow, Gob987, CODA, Kipper, etc.); he could set the agenda, establish the discourse, and stop being an annoying invasive viral parasite carpetbagging hijacker. I'm sure that many of his loyal minions (V99 or Pumpkin or Tango or Jace or whatever) could help him set it up and keep it running. The owners/operators of the other blogs he periodically inflicts himself upon would benefit, because, frankly, he takes up way too much room with bulky, mostly inpenetrable and incomprehensible, albeit unique, Brobdingnagian commentary. Clearly, a "win-win".
How come Gerwyn has not yet staked out his own little corner of the internet? The time has come. Make a stand. Plant your banner, rig for sea, man battlestations, make ready to take on all comers, from Coffin to Wesslley, from PACE to Paprotka and Pathak–The Gerwyn has finally arrived!
>@Gerwyn, sorry I won't let that last one pass. I have no dog in this fight. The only motive I have is to see science and medicine do what it is supposed to do, which is to help people live better. That requires objectivity. You and a few others, on the other hand, jumped to a hasty conclusion on limited data, and now absolutely refuse to even reconsider that conclusion in the face of a plethora of new evidence to the contrary. So the real question is not what's my motive, it's what is yours? Again, good luck, I think you will need it with that close minded approach.
The point really which our friend avoids is that a great many people have attempted to prove their theory that the gammaretroviruses detected in the blood of ME are contaminants or laboratory artifacts
Because they have not adhered to the scientific method these people have produced a plethora of evidence which is not scientific in nature.Such evidence is nothing but the product of confirmation bias. According to our friend above we should accept such speculative conclusions as fact because it has been produced by so many people using unvalidated assays and because these people are world class or whatever his term is to describe them
Unless they use assays which have been shown to be capable of detecting MRV sequences in the blood of people with ME their conclusions are merely speculative.The PCR assays used by people who have reported failure to detect MRV sequences in the blood of people who may or may not have Me have been optimized the same way.They have all demonstrated a good theoretical limit of detection but their ability to detect sequences in a patient are completely unproven
Our friend who purports to be interested in nothing but the pursuance of objective science is actually supporting approaches which are the antithesis of the scientific approach
This is very strange behavior from someone who protests that he has nothing but the well being of people with ME at heart
This behavior coupled with the refusal to engage in any substantive argument makes me think that his position is wholly disingenuous
Others may come to a different conclusion re the merits of his posts and the motives behind them
>Dearest Gerwyn :
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml
http://jvi.asm.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml
http://www.nature.com/authors/submit_manuscript.html
http://www.virologyj.com/authors/instructions
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622952/authorinstructions
Enough is enough. If you have something worthwhile to comment on all these "nefarious" studies done by experienced professional virologists then SUBMIT THEM. If you genuinely want to help fellow patients SUBMIT THEM. If there is substance to your endless repeated arguments SUBMIT THEM. Not an email to the Editor – which you know perfectly well will not be scrutinised – but a proper submission.
Why would you not do this, oh Gerwyn ? Why ?
You have now been told on multiple blogs by scientists that you lack even a basic understanding of Virology. PROVE OTHERWISE.
Or you could continue to pretend to sick patients that you know what you are forever prattling on about. It is dishonest and reprehensible.
IF YOU HONESTLY WANT TO HELP PATIENTS THEN SUBMIT. OR SHUT UP.
Everyone else (my fellow patients) : have a nice day. There is no more to say on the subject of the all-knowing-Gerwyn-with-no-Virology-qualifications.
P.S. On the subject of this blog – yes, please, leave it to the Police and the academic authorities. In the meantime stop dripfeeding propaganda from…who might it be ? Please stop. It's pretty distasteful.
>Gerwyn,
Submit your "concerns" to a journal. If you are truly serious about them and you want to help patients.
WHY WOULD YOU NOT DO THIS ?
And not an email to the Editor but a proper submission through the proper channels.
WHY WOULD YOU NOT DO THIS ?
Otherwise people might conclude that you just want to pretend to sick patients that you are knowledgeable when in fact multiple blogs have been telling you that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Some might find this dishonest and reprehensible.
SUBMIT. OR SHUT UP.
Signed,
A fellow patient who doesn't pretend that he knows better than professional Virologists.
>People have and are submitting these valid criticisms. Why is it that you are unable to grasp centuries old principles and practices. Enough is enough the negative studies are unscientific and not comparable, the Lipkin study is no different.
>It is interesting to see how panicked and angry are those who would like to skip the scientific method and provide no proof that those assays work. Let's make it clear. The assays in the negative studies can be said to be incorrect for detecting ZMRVs. They can be said to not work. They can be said to be failures. Because no evidence exists to show they could work. So back to research we go and say goodbye to the Lipkin HHS study. It has no relevance.
>Ila Singh has never recanted this statement as it is part and parcel of the proof needed for an assay to be validated.
"It’s just not sufficient to show that something can detect something in a plasmid template. It’s hard to know if it’s going to detect something in a matrix that’s as complicated as blood or cellular DNA. So I think that’s probably one of the biggest reasons for why people find different results.."
TWiV 94: XMRV with Dr. Ila Singh' (8 August 2010)
>I agree, anon, that Gerwyn is damaging to the community.
Early on in his posts on PR it was clear he didn't even have access to full papers and was drawing his massively speculative conclusions from abstracts. That was clue #1 he doesn't really understand how scientists study, evaluate, or talk about science – a real scientist would NEVER do that. He doesn't seem to have published anything and isn't upfront about his work experience. So, how does he know about how to conduct a PCR test? The more speculative and unsupported stuff he brings up detract so much of what he has to say, that it's difficult to take any of his more thoughtful contributions at face value.
While it's been difficult to stomach that anyone takes Gerwyn seriously, they do. He has a prolific group of disciples (like Jace, V) that seem to spend their days copying and pasting his stuff hither and yon all over the internet. It does make me wonder – I had that much energy to do stuff, it wouldn't be spreading the word, missionary style, of someone whose scientific literacy is shaky at best.
It's been sad to watch a lot of the smart, non-combative people fall out of the community because of the Gerwyn-ites. And, no doubt the parroting of his stuff on blog comments hasn't helped us be taken seriously by the scientific community.
I hesitate to post this, but, perhaps someone will think a little more critically about what they read by Gerwyn, or anyone for that matter on a message board.
>Professor Racaniello has not recanted this statement, again because it would be unscientific to do so.
“In my view the CDC paper should not have been published without a proper positive control, eg patient samples known to contain XMRV. If I had reviewed the CDC paper that's what I would have asked for.”
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?187-Dr-Mikovits-and-Dr-Racaniello-on-XMRV
>This has also never been recanted. Dr. Roger Dodd on HGRVs at the 1st XMRV conference.
"…we have heard that this virus might have entered human populations tens of thousands or more years ago…"
>So when Ila Singh says that she is credible. But when the same Ila Singh then conducts what she and others describe as a comprehensive, well designed study using multiple methods and assays, and concludes "XMRV is not associated with CFS", she is garbage and should be shunned. Ok.
>I will let others judge the merit of that which he so hesitantly posted as well
The motive appears reasonably clear
>Ila Singh is fully aware of what the scientific method is. The study Shin et al. did not use clinically validated assays. She has stated they must be used. XMRV/VP62 is not the viruses discovered by Mikovits and Ruscetti. You have no argument
>The post below demonstrates a certain level of conceptual misunderstanding
Anonymous said…
So when Ila Singh says that she is credible. But when the same Ila Singh then conducts what she and others describe as a comprehensive, well designed study using multiple methods and assays, and concludes "XMRV is not associated with CFS", she is garbage and should be shunned. Ok.
The point of course is that ILa Singh stressed that the clinical sensitivity of a PCR assay MUST be demonstrated and merely relying on the analytical sensitivity data is not enough
Then she conducts a study which she abandons a PCR assay which had demonstrated its clinical sensitivity and used a new one without determining its clinical sensitivity.Essentially she did not practice what she preached but relied on analytical sensitivity data only
Perhaps our friend simply does not understand the science involved here
>These people in one breath claim they have no dog and then make up rubbish about harming the community. They are as I am sure many will agree harming ME patients and any other human infected. They have no right to skip the scientific method and be an obstacle to science.
>Q: What is a "clinically validated" assay?
A: One which correctly detects clinically positive samples.
Q: What is a clinically positive sample in this case?
A: A blood sample from an ME/CFS patient infected with XMRV.
Q: But what is XMRV is merely a lab contaminant, and does not exist in the blood of ME/CFS patients?
A: That is simply not possible.
Q: But if it were true, any capable assay to detect the virus would come up with a negative result.
A: Then the assay is invalid. You must use a "clinically validated" assay.
Go to top…
>Incorrect the viruses detected in people with ME are ZMRVs not prostate cancer XMRV or VP62/XMRV. Only VP62 made in 2006 is a lab contaminated in 22rv1. No evidence if contamination in the Mikovits/WPI or Ruscett/NCI labs.
>analytical sensitivity is the theoretical limit of detection of a PCR assay
clinical or diagnostic sensitivity is the ability of an assay to detect target sequences in people known to harbor such sequences
high analytical sensitivity and zero clinical sensitivity occur quite regularly
This is why a PCR assay will not get a license unless its clinical or diagnostic sensitivity is established
In common practice most researchers investigating HIV use commercial PCR assays which have been preoptimised to detect different strains of HIV
our so called world class scientists designed assays which could only ever detect one strain of XMRV and neglected to provide any evidence whatsoever that their PCR assays could even detect the vp62 strain of XMRV in an infected person
This is the kind of practice that our anonymous friends would encourage people with ME to accept even though the evidence is codified opinion and not fact
This technique of portraying subjective opinion as objective fact is well beloved by known oppressors of people with ME
Responding to substantive points with ad hominem attacks is another favored methodology
>See what happens when you let Gerwyn and his kids run around unsupervised? You used to have a nice little blog here. Now look at it.
I'm going over to the ME/CSF Forums for some peace and quiet.
>Dr. Enlander's event on Nov. 20 will not be livestreamed. They are going to video the meeting, and they are going to make the video available on the internet after the event. You can see updates on mecfsforums: http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php/topic,10334.msg124512.html#new
>Gerwyn said:
"clinical or diagnostic sensitivity is the ability of an assay to detect target sequences in people known to harbor such sequences"
THEY ARE NOT KNOWN TO HARBOR SUCH SEQUENCES! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!
And when you say that Ah!, you KNOW they do, you are making a ridiculous statement.
>no that is not correct those sequences have been detected in people with ME
some people doubt the results because they dont believe that gammaretroviruses can infect humans
without the use of the same assay conditions which detected those sequences ,detected specific antibody responses and demonstrated cel free and cell cell transfer the people who oppose those findings cannot disprove those findings
If the use of those assays produces the same results when other people known to have ME are examined then the position of coffin and co will be untenable
all they need to do is repeat the study using the same assay variables as used in Lombardi et al.Then the matter can be settled one way or another
Untill this time they are merely producing noise in an attempt to distract from the key issues much as our friend above is doing
>Gerwyn @November 18, 2011 3:37:
"all they need to do is repeat the study using the same assay variables as used in Lombardi et al.Then the matter can be settled one way or another"
Would a true replication of Lombardi et al's conditions include contaminating one's samples with vp62?
>Sad to see this blog is posted on the WPI Awareness Page where free speech is not allowed.
>Gerwyn said…"no that is not correct those sequences have been detected in people with ME"
And how do we KNOW this to be true? Because WPI detected those sequences using a clinically validated assay. And how do we know the WPI assay was clinically validated? Because it was able to detect those sequences in people with ME.
Round and round she goes…
>@AnonymousNonRetroviruologist
Let's forget for a minute about whether the PCRs were the same. And let's overlook whether there was contamination.
What about the cultures that grew?
What about Dr. Lo finding a related retrovirus that doesn't match with contamination?
I wish he would speak up.
>Lo had the sane finding as Lombardi et al. Paula. The findings are no different. Both gag sequences are polytropic.
>Lo had the sane finding as Lombardi et al. Paula. The findings are no different. Both gag sequences are polytropic.
>all that is needed to settle the matter is to use the same assays as used in lombardi et all
our opponents resort to words which they believe shows them to be clever when in fact it merely makes them sound foolish and callous
>In case anybody cares about more than assays, Judy Mikovits was arrested today.
>our anonymous poster once again tries to play with words probably thinking that he sounds clever. it may be that he spends too much time on the bad science forums
Anonymous said…
Gerwyn said…"no that is not correct those sequences have been detected in people with ME"
And how do we KNOW this to be true? Because WPI detected those sequences using a clinically validated assay. And how do we know the WPI assay was clinically validated? Because it was able to detect those sequences in people with ME.
The statement above is erroneous and misleading
What happened in reality was the fact that the RT-PCR assay developed by Max was based on an assay which had detected retroviral cDNA sequences in people shown to be infected using FISH IHC and microarray assays.This means the presence of a replicating gammaretroviruses was confirmed by assays which had nothing to do with PCR. Thus they began with a clinically validated assay and lowered the annealing temperature of the PCR assay in order to enable to detect sequences with sequence variation if present
Thus it is indeed known that the lombadi cohort contained gammaretroviral sequences in the RNA extracted from patients PMBCs
The fact that certain people dont believe the results is of no import.Just because they dont believe it does not mean that the patient samples are not known to contain gammaretroviral sequences
It is late here so I am going to retire and heinous events are occurring elsewhere which will no doubt delight our anonymous astrosurfers
>The reason we know ZMRVs are in people with ME is because Lo et al. had the same finding and because multiple assays were used in Lombardi et al to confirm the results. It is normal practice to clinically validate assays based on results from multiple assays.
>And where is Frank Ruscetti in all this? Why has he not risen to the defense of his "protege"? I will telly you why..because Judy is a liar and he got suckered like alot of the other science community. In fact I doubt Frank and Sandra Ruscetti will stay at NCI much longer after this and simply retire out of disappointment.