My blog was never about Judy Mikovits. It is about the hypothesis. That hypothesis is on the back shelf until this sordid mess plays itself out, which will now probably take years. Years of studying downstream effects, blinders on again, nobody looking for the source of the illness. Tragic.
Take a look at this, not a paper, a blurb on the bottom of a scientist’s webpage. She is probably afraid to publish amidst all the controversy. Who in their right mind would want to jump into this cesspool? With the fishbowl of vitriol that comprise many of the comments on this blog?
Identification of a novel retrovirus in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)
BPH describes a benign condition experienced by most men as they age, and is a result of increased proliferation (growth) of fibroblast and epithelial cells surrounding the urethra, which over time can form “nodules” and result in compression of the urethra and subsequently obstruction of urinary flow. Symptoms of BPH include urinary hesitancy, frequent urination, dysuria (painful urination), increased risk of urinary tract infections, and urinary retention. Treatment includes surgery and pharmacologic options, although the cause of BPH is unknown. Using tissue from patients who have undergone surgical treatment to alleviate BPH, we discovered that the affected tissue appears to have altered gene expression patterns when compared to normal prostate tissue. This is not unexpected, as the tissue is clearly growing more quickly. However we identified what appears to be increased expression of genes related to an antiviral response. Given the recent findings of a novel virus, XMRV, found in some prostate tumors, we analyzed the BPH affected tissue for viral infection. We found that the majority of tissue from symptomatic BPH patients contained low levels of a virus not previously found in humans. Sequencing confirmed that the virus consists of 2 variants, is not XMRV, and likely produces a protein that has been related to inflammation in other species. Interestingly, the exact virus sequence differs among patients, suggesting that upon infection of the tissue, the virus undergoes replication. Furthermore, sequencing revealed that the virus is likely transcriptionally regulated by androgens, which is consistent with the fact that cell growth in BPH is androgen-dependent and the classic non surgical treatment for BPH is inhibition of DHT (an androgen) production. Both variants of the virus have submitted to the USPTO as a provisional patent, as they may be a therapeutic target for this disease. In addition, we are currently seeking funding to assist in the development of a vaccine, which could potentially eradicate BPH if this novel virus causes the disease, or even if it is just expressed (as a “bystander”) in BPH-affected tissue.
Denise O’Keefe, PhD webpage UPMC
For everybody who has written that I need to admit that Judy fooled me, I still don’t feel fooled. I could be fooled by a psychopath, like anyone. I have been before. I had a lawyer once that fooled me completely. I have reported my impressions of a person I know well, who is passionate and caring and stands up for what she believes. No signs of psychopathy at all. I hope I am right. In the fishbowl we now find ourselves, I’m sure we’ll find out. Everything. It will be like a rape trial. Blame the victim is always a good strategy.
Here is the timeline, since people seem to be questioning what I did when. I read the paper on Oct 9, 2009. I wrote my angry email to the WPI on Oct 28. I was angry for a while, until I met Judy in January. I paid VIP Dx for 2 tests, for my daughter and myself, in early 2010. I couldn’t afford to test my husband or son. I sent specimens to the WPI on a regular basis when we started arv’s, but was never given any results. Some of our specimens were tested, but I don’t know what those results were. It was never reported to me. I was told that some of our specimens were improperly handled by a research fellow who was subsequently fired. I started working as a volunteer for the WPI in the fall of 2010. I started working as an independent contractor in Jan 2011. I worked there for 6 months, mostly from Santa Fe. I made 5 trips to Reno from 3 days to a week. I was fired in early July of this year.
Finding oneself in the position of a whistle blower is a miserable experience. By writing I hope that I have put the WPI on notice of what I would say in court if dragged in. They don’t need a subpoena to find out. They are behaving like thugs. Have they never heard of mediation? I am only sorry that I didn’t say it all sooner. I have mail from people who are angry at me, because they gave money recently. I held hope for a good outcome for longer than I should have. For that I am so sorry.
I also have mail telling me that I should be afraid for my physical safety. That I should ask for witness protection. Witness to what? I wasn’t there. That’s how completely crazy this has become. I would laugh it off, but I would never have believed what has already happened. It is all so beyond the pale. SNR Denton, very expensive patent lawyers, are monitoring my blog again in the last couple of days from Chicago and Kansas City, including the tech department. It is creepy beyond belief. And the money being spent on all this? Where did it come from? Imagine what the tab is by now!
I feel like I stepped in dog shit and will never get it off. Everyone involved has been brought down by it. I don’t know what to do, except keep telling the truth as I see it. As I said, I wish I had done it sooner, but I still held hope for a positive outcome somehow. I can’t believe that all of this is happening. A year ago it was all so hopeful. I am heartsick.
>I also love how it is continuously claimed that the assays used in the BWG paper wouldn't detect the "HGRVs" that are actually present, when clearly the PCR conditions used in Lo / Alter, which had been optimized for XMRV, were clearly quite able to amplify non-XMRV MLVs, which still stands as the only evidence of these so-called HGRVs infecting people.
If Mikovits / Ruscetti thought they could optimize their PCR conditions to better identify HGRVs for the BWG paper, don't you think they would have done so?
>These are facts. Read the BWG paper. No PBMCs were screened by any lab for the controls. Ruscetti did no PCR and Lombardi/ViPDx did the blood study. The organisers of the blood working group have admitted the controls were not screened by all labs. The controls cannot therefore be controls and could not be ruled out as postives. The only group to therefore be using clincallit validated assys was Ruscetti, who only did serology and culture. Those results cannot be refuted as there were no real controls.
>Mikovits did not do the BWG paper. Collection tubes were not protected from contamination from VP62/22Rv1 as they were in the same lab. So no controls and contamination issues.
The Lo team for the BWG did not use the assay that worked it Lo et al. It was a different assay. Optimising to Synthetic VP62 dies mean an assay is not optimised to HGRVs. One is integrated the other is not. One is the viruses others have detected the other is man made in 2006 and never once found by anyone in nature.
>As Mikovits and Lipkin are not involved in Lipkin study and we know Vp62 is the reason other papers have failed to find even background levels of these viruses it will only be another paper not attempting to ask the crucial questions, such as, what happens when you replicate Lombardi et al? Failing to answer this is the nail in the Coffin for science.
>"The Lo team for the BWG did not use the assay that worked it Lo et al. It was a different assay."
Does this mean it has never even occurred to you that perhaps the earlier Lo et al assay actually didn't work, and the most recent one did? Hmmmm?
>Lol. You need evidence to show another assay doesnt now work. Where is that? And what are you saying, they stopped using the other assay so used the one that they knew didn't work. What amazing logic you have. Lol. Lo's team used he wrong assay. Nothing more can be said about that.
>It is cheaper to not fund science when there is no science taking place. People could loose their jobs and pensions if more people pro-science realise this is taking place.
>Let's keep it as simple as we can, despite all the various posters with the same name aka "anonymous".
Alter and Lo found a retrovirus in blood samples of me/cfs patients. Thie murine retrovirus was not a lab contaminant, nor was it something humans have carried for thousands of years.
When I heard Mikovits describe what she found vs what Lo found she said they were related.
It is imperative for the health of the entire world that honest, cooperative reseach continues. We may all be going down into massive disease conditions if we allow petty debates over who has property rights to research.
I keep hoping Drs. Alter and Lo are quietly continuing research. I don't see where else we can look for hope at this time.
Dr. Lo, this may be your time to step up and save many people.
>Ah, so the Lo et al assay worked initially. But then after they were careful to control for contamination, it stopped working for some strange reason. Ah yes, strange coincidence…
Reminds me of that old joke about a scientist experimenting with frogs. The scientist says "Jump frog, jump", and the frog jumps. The scientists repeats this experiment several times, each time cutting off a leg of the frog and then commanding it to jump. Each time it struggles but manages to jump. After cutting of the fourth and last leg the scientist again says "Jump frog, jump". This time the frog doesn't move. The scientist carefully writes in his notebook "After cutting off all four legs, the frog becomes deaf".
>"Ah, so the Lo et al assay worked initially. But then after they were careful to control for contamination, it stopped working for some strange reason. Ah yes, strange coincidence…"
The Lo assay that worked in Lo et al. has never been shown not to work. It was not used in the blood working group.
>Lo found sequences not a whole retrovirus.Finding sequences does not equal finding a retrovirus. It may be evidence thereof but it is not the same thing.
>Why in the world would Lo et al switch from an assay that worked to one that didn't work?
>It looks to me like the BWG needs to redo the work. Lo needs to use his original assay, and WPI needs to use the assay in Lombardi et al (NOT the assay used at VIPdx – which we
have all been told is not clinically validated, and is the reason it should never have been 'sold' to patients.)
That would make me happy.
http://www.peoplewithme.com
>I think we need to revisit Dr Elaine DeFreitas work. We need, somehow, to throw out the crazy bathwater and keep the baby. A retrovirus has been glimpsed twice. Let's find out why that happened and put that baby to bed.
>Anon at10:17:
" It is appalling for you now to be infantilizing Judy Mikovits and pretending that Annette Whittemore should take responsibility for Judy's actions. On the one hand, you argue that Max Pfost was fully capable of acting independently of Judy, on the other that Judy's behavior is Annette's responsibility. "
THANK YOU. You have it exactly right.
Jamie, please, how in the world has Judy Mikovits in any way been "victimized"?
>"@Andrea: Hope you enjoyed the tenofovir. Too bad the rest of us will never get any."
OMG. Spoken like a professional victim.
And a bully for that matter.
>Paula, you're assuming that the retroviruses that Lo found cause disease, but are forgetting that they're found more in healthy patients by a factor of 10, than ME/CFS patients.
>The BWG does not need to redo their work, especially just to satisfy the lunatic fringe members here, who will never accept any negative result no matter how well done the study may be. And I seriously doubt tenofovir provides any benefit, other than the placebo type.
>What is the problem with redoing the work? Dr Nancy Klimas herself said 15 wasn't a good enough number to base any conclusion on (Ottawa conf) – let alone the issue of the assays used. So, Nancy is a lunatic?
>Why not? If the BWG was the only negative study out there, then perhaps you would have a rational argument for doing another bigger study. However, the BWG is simply the latest in a very long line of negative studies. Oh, and there s another Lipkin study to come, but of course that one is already being denounced as invalid, even though Lipkin was being lionized by the same lunatic fringe just a few months ago.
>Jamie Deckoff-Jones on December 30th, 2010 — "I am filled with gratitude for the WPI for the considerable quality of life improvement that my family has already experienced as a direct result of their work, I will never be able to repay my debt adequately but I will try."
Just some quotes from this blog. Hard to know motivations and the truth sometimes.
Jamie Deckoff-Jones on August 5th, 2011 == "I've been informed that the management at the WPI has decided that there will be no group in the clinic. The physicians will practice independently, rather than the academic department I had envisioned. Thus there is no need for a clinical director and I have been given my pink slip, returning to volunteer status. I am disappointed by this decision, but remain completely supportive of the institute's goals and the scientific effort".
>Good sleuthing, YoYoMama. You have verified what I have already said. That I thought and felt different things at different times. In the face of having every reason to remain supportive, even after being fired, I changed my opinion.
>Paula…I also hope that work is quietly continuing quickly in many camps. Things seem so hopeless right now. I am floored that so few seem to care about our deaths and suicides – only a handful of doctors.
>If all us patients and their doctors are all lunitics then why are you bothering with this blog? Haven't you got any hobbies? I'm just ill and want to see the science done correctly. So far no-one has replicated Lombardi et al 2009.
>well if lipkin cant find the virus, its probably not there….and i dont think he is finding it.
>"@Andrea: Hope you enjoyed the tenofovir. Too bad the rest of us will never get any."
OMG. Spoken like a professional victim.
And a bully for that matter."
I could NOT agree MORE!
…There's a whole forum of these people. You don't have to look far to find them. They're the same (small group of) people who bullied fellow CFS sufferers for wanting to take part in Miller's study. They bully and disrespect a different researcher/writer/forum owner/fellow patient every week.
Enough of the bullying. How do we best move forward?
>Things change and people change opinions every day in the real world. New information comes to light and hopefully, it influences us.
By the way, I didn't write the comment at 4:00 p.m. about Lo. I don't get into the retroviral studies and pros and cons.
There are a lot of great comments on this blog today.
I think we don't know all of what happened at WPI with Judy Mikovits.
I do think that Dr. Mikovits taking her own research is 100% different from an employee leaving with a cash register. That was her life's work, her commitment, what she thought about every day.
Also, someone raised about Ms Whittemore calling her "insolent" and "insubordinate." So what if she disagreed? WPI isn't a military organization where people have to salute and fall in love. People, including scientists, can have their own opinions. No one loses their opinions when they have a job.
I think CFS sufferers should not lose hope because this scenario didn't work out. I wouldn't put all eggs into one basket.
There is Dr. Enlander's center, Lipkin, Klimas, the Lights, Norwegian Drs. Malle and Fluge, etc.
And it seems as if what's happened in Norway is setting off more research in Europe and the U.S.
I wouldn't be disappointed for too long. There is hope, although I hope answers don't take too long. I'd still like to be around when discoveries are made and answers and treatments are sound.
>My comment: paragraph 5, line 4: meant to say "fall in line." (What a slip; my CFS is showing.)
>Jamie. Your comments on this and the last few blogs seem to intimate that you knew from the beginning that Annette Whittemore was not a good manager. You even posted an email your wrote prior to be hired. You lauded the WPI previously, then you wrote the "coming clean blog" basically saying you knew for a long time that the WPI was not a great place. Yet, for a long time all you posted were kudo's So that makes you disingenuous. If I had an opinion when I was employed, and my employers didn't like it, that was fine. I didn't post defamatory comments on a blog just because I was annoyed my employers didn't do things MY WAY. It seems you escalated your negativity when Judy got fired and then arrested. You have inflamed patients, caused arguments, slimed the WPI and the Whittemores, etc, etc. If you care about patients, you should stop all of this. You are a doctor, what happened to that oath you took — "Above all do no harm". You have harmed — the WPI, the Whittemores, the patients and Judy (for continuing the conversation after she asked people to stop because it was doing more harm than good. You consider what you are doing "whistleblowing". It's not. Why not move on to other things instead of causing a division in the "community".
>Kathy d at 4 pm – Please give a link which documents research showing that the retrovirus Lo found is more common in healthy people than sick people. I don't recall reading that.
Also , I am confused. Kathy d says she did not write that comment. Whoever did write it, please give a link to the research and sign your name. The world will thank you. Well I will anyway.
>"If I had an opinion when I was employed, and my employers didn't like it, that was fine. I didn't post defamatory comments on a blog just because I was annoyed my employers didn't do things MY WAY."
Exactly YoYoMama,
I posted positive things when I felt them. When I thought it was just incompetence, I was quiet and tried to stay hopeful. When I was fired, I said something vanilla. I tried hard not to be angry. I held out some hope that Annette would see the light and step down. But when Judy was fired in a fit of rage, locked out of her lab, then sued and finally arrested, the patient community was harmed, and certainly not by me. The behavior has been completely over the top. I could no longer be silent.
I have been writing here regularly for a long time. I have given a large group of people reason to expect that I will express my opinions, so much so that saying nothing might be considered being complicit.
This seems like a good time to say that this idea that I have some responsibility to remain silent because the information hurts the patient community is really incredibly patronizing. Just because I think something, doesn't mean anyone else will agree. This blog was never meant for me to be convincing anyone of anything. I am sharing ideas that may or may not fit for you. Either way is fine. I'm not trying to get votes for my side. I don't have a side in that sense. I don't have a protocol to sell. I have a few patients and am not here to drum up business. I have an hypothesis that is worthy of lots more thought and study. I am trying to expand the discussion, hopefully in a way that sheds some light, but the comments are often just as illuminating as anything I write.
Jamie
>"@Andrea: Hope you enjoyed the tenofovir. Too bad the rest of us will never get any."
OMG. Spoken like a professional victim.
And a bully for that matter."
I have gone back and forth between really feeling for Andrea and resenting that she is getting some treatment that is out of reach for the rest of us. I really have. Andrea and I are of similar age and I feel some connection to her without knowing her. I do believe that Andrea means well and that she believes what she is saying when she supports the WPI and her family. But I also believe that Andrea is in the dark about many things re the WPI. I would keep my very ill daughter in the dark, too. That's what good parents do. And they also feed their daughter the reasons for why she shouldn't feel guilty for having a treatment available to her that would benefit many, but it unavailable for almost everybody else, partly because she is keeping quiet about what's really helped her. Getting Andrea well is the reason for the existence of the WPI–let's not forget that. And from what we know from very reliable sources, that's what they got: Andrea is a lot better. Not wheel chair-bound anymore. No more seizures. Able to exercise some. Work part-time or more. All of that b/c of Tenofovir.
Calling a patient who does not have the financial means to make that happen for him or her a "professional victim" or a bully" is despicable. It's the kind of stuff that most likely comes from the Whittemore camp, so probably not too surprising given everything we know about that family. It's ironic that they would try to turn the table and paint Andreas as the victim. I have a feeling that it just speaks to how much they care about Andrea. But it's lame and it's unforgivable.
>I think all of the comments that Dr. Deckoff-Jones has made here are brave and principled and informative to those of us who want to know what happened, including the backstory.
No one is forcing anyone to believe anything or fall into line. The information given has been helpful. It seems that readers can accept or reject it or part of it.
We are all adults here, adults with a horrendous disease. We also want to be informed about developments in the researching of causes and treatment of this illness.
We don't want to be forever hung up on the WPI/Dr. Mikovits issues, no. But we do want to be fully informed so we can figure it out and then have some kind of closure.
I appreciate the frankness, and am still processing what happened and what's said.
I still think we don't know the whole story and may never know it. I still don't know motives. I don't know what WPI will get from the research notebooks, what they are looking for, how they want to benefit and from what. They must think that there's a lot to the research or they wouldn't have wanted it.
Anyway, I'm not going to spend too much time on this, although I object to the mistreatment of a woman scientist, who does have rights — the last time I checked on our civil liberties here.
And as far as that argument about there being laws on who owns intellectual property rights, laws change here. It wasn't that long ago that many people could not vote. That was changed, as have many laws. And we can disagree about this and have our own opinions.
I'm glad more information has come out. I'll ponder it. I don't think all is lost because of this. Lots of other research, much of it motivated by Dr. Mikovits, I'm sure, is going on.
So, I'm hopeful.
>Okay. A patient without financial means wrote this: "@Andrea: Hope you enjoyed the tenofovir. Too bad the rest of us will never get any"
Two posters think this remark is that of a "professional victim" or a "bully."
Then Anonymous, 10:37, responds:
"Calling a patient who does not have the financial means to make that happen for him or her a "professional victim" or a bully" is despicable. It's the kind of stuff that most likely comes from the Whittemore camp … It's ironic that they would try to turn the table and paint Andreas as the victim…it's lame and it's unforgivable."
I am not in the Whittemore camp. I do not know Andrea. I have had ME/CFS for 30 years and I live far below the poverty level. But I would never make a remark like that. I might be angry with Andrea's parents, and vent my anger at them. But even if it comes from a place of emotional and physical pain, guilt-tripping Andrea–trying to inflict another patient with stress and guilt–is indecent and malicious. You don't have to be "in" with the Whittemores to think so. It may be understandable but it's not right, it's not humane, and it shames us all as a community.
Terrilyn
>Can someone explain to me why blood was never sent to Dr. Lipkin before this? Or was it? It makes no sense to me. There were cluster outbreaks of CFS just like there were with West Nile. I just do not understand any of this. Why wasn't he asked to look before? The disease has been around for over 35 yrs!?
>Why Dr Lipkin? He has never discovered a human retrovirus. If he doesn't use clinically validated assays his research is no more relevant then any other negative paper. Let's jump to the chase and say those assays don't work. What we need is results based on assays that do. There are people who would claim a nail is not made of metal because their plastic magnet wouldn't pick it up. Very very very dumb.
"Paula, you're assuming that the retroviruses that Lo found cause disease, but are forgetting that they're found more in healthy patients by a factor of 10, than ME/CFS patients."
There has been no such study.
>Do people realise that Lipkin is not researching HGRVs and is doing no testing himself.
>Results from Lo et al. 87% patients 7% controls. Pathogenesis for later research, but already an immune response and profile detected in Lombardi et al. (2009, 2011).
>I thought that Dr. Lipkin went to WPI sometime earlier this year. He met with Judy Mikovits and discussed the research there. He gave a lecture on viruses, which was posted at the WPI website. (I saw it, it was not about CFS).
He said that CFS is probably caused by a virus. He was interested in doing work on this, but there was no funding. He asked if people could help get private donations, if anyone knew programmers who could get involved. He said this requires the highest technology, which is expensive. He talked about how much it cost to gather blood samples from the right group, how much it cost to test the samples, etc.
Then the Chronic Fatigue Initiative announced itself. He's on it. He said he'd research several viruses to look for causes of CFS.
He's also still supposed to be looking a blood samples from an NIH study. That got put off until 2012. What is happening with that?
>Here's a link to David Tuller's new article on CFS and the CDC, their non-action,
http://www.virology.ws/2011/11/23/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-the-cdc-a-long-tangled-tale/
>anon@12.54 ..why lipkin? because he is known as the guy who finds hard-to-find viruses…all kinds i assumed.
>@Jillnz
"Dr Nancy Klimas herself said 15 wasn't a good enough number to base any conclusion on (Ottawa conf) – let alone the issue of the assays used. So, Nancy is a lunatic?"
I certainly don't think Dr. Klimas is "a lunatic", but in this case she is quite clealy wrong.
A sample size of 15 is in many cases too small a small sample size to draw meaningful conclusions from, and I guess she said this out of the experience of necessarily having used larger samples sizes herself.
However, the results from the BWG are most definitely statistically significant, i.e. there is just no way that, if the methods of the "positive labs" were correct, that you would get these results as some sort of statistical freak accident.
While a result will be generally considered statistically significant when the results could have occured with the alternative hypothesis being true with less than 5% chance, in this case the chances are way, way lower than that. We're talking about lotery winning chances here.
So while Dr. Klimas may be a very fine ME/CFS physician, she is wrong about the statistical significance of the BWG results..
>@ Terrilyn
Completely agree with you.
And I have ME.
>@Kathy.d
For the sake of science, why don't you just crawl down Jamie's Rabbit Hole and stay there. You don't know what you are talking about, Geez
>"However, the results from the BWG are most definitely statistically significant, i.e. there is just no way that, if the methods of the "positive labs" were correct, that you would get these results as some sort of statistical freak accident. "
The study was underpowered and 14 is tiny, pilot study in reality as phase II was. But that does not alter how contamination was easily introduced into control samples by having some collection tubes and 22Rv1/VP62 tested in the CDC lab. It does won't change that cpntrols could not have been declared negative as no PBMCs were pre-screened. So there were no controls and you cannot expect them to be negative.
Lo's team used the assay that failed in Lo et al. in the BWG.
Lombardi did the testing at ViPDx and no Trizol was added to the PBMCs thereby defeating degrading the virus.
Ruscetti did no PCR, only serology and culture.
John Coffin in his last two studies found XMRV in prostate cancer and HIV patients, but used multiple assays with different abllities to claim a person must be positive on all assays. No explanation for the positive results was given and as if in a board game he jumped directly to contamination.
Where have these viruses that infect humans come from? As they now admit they are not directly from mice. There is no explanation. There is no data to refute the EM of the budding maturing virus that was integrated. There is no data to refute the human immune response to an MLV virus.
>Statistical significance doesnt factor in when the study was not well controlled for contamination, real controls were absent and assays were not clinically validated. The results of every lab on that study that optimised to VP62/XMRV is irrelevant. That is proven as not the viruses found in lombardi and Lo and such assays would not be optimised to HGRVs.
>Lipkin has no special powers and is not testing for HGRVs. The Government set up study was set up as they wondered why there are negative papers. We now know it is due to VP62 not being the viruses Mikovits/Ruscetti discovered and those assays were never clinically validated.
>Mikovits and Ruscetti are not involved in the multi lab study and the assays of those participating cannot be said to be clinically validated. Predictable outcome and bad for bookies. Let's get someone to replicate. A real neutral who isn't getting funding for looking at other already dismissed pathogens. Have them replicate the entire Lombardi paper. That would make patients happy and satisfy. But this study should be set in stone as a replication study by having it openly published on the NIH or HHS website stating it will be a replication study.
>@anonymous
1.
"The study was underpowered and 14 is tiny"
No, it isn't for the prupose of this study.
In Mikovits's own words, "you don't get an antibody reaction to a contaminant". Mikovits and Ruscetti together declared 10 out of 15 healty controls to be POSITIVE using an ANTIBODY test.
Even if you (mistakenly) believe that the negative pedigreeing was totally worthless, then STILL these results are statistically (very) significant.
In other words, if there initial results would have been correct (~3.7% of controls are positive for any HGRV/ZMRV/XMRV), the chances of getting 10 out of 15 controls to be positive for ANTIBODIES, would be incredibly low (x<0.000001).
2. You misread the part about 22Rv1 cell lines being in the same lab room as those tubes.
However, in any case, even if you had been right, the total absence of XMRV detection by all the other labs shows that things did not get contaminated.
Remember that the other labs were better, or at least just as good as WPI at detecting VP62/22Rv1 at any time tests were compared (see table S7 of the Simmons paper for instance). Judy Mikovits having the best assay in the whole wide world to detect "wild type virus" doesn't really work when we're talking about 22Rv1/VP62 contamination.
Therefore, it is statistically almost impossible that just *some tubes* were contaminated with Vp62/22Rv1 (and note that it still wouldn't explain the serology results), and that all those tubes "accidentally" ended up in the labs of Mikovits/Ruscetti, and none ended up in (for instance) the CDC lab.
A vast conspiracy to get false positives into the Ruscetti/WPI labs is really the only other alternative to argue here, and you are welcome to do so, but just "contamination" or "statistical insignificance" will not cut it. Sorry.
3.
Lo's team were free to use whatever assay(s) they wanted to use an assay that worked in their earlier study. Yo are again echoing a forum meme that has no merit in actual reality.
Are you now arguing that Lo and Alter are pretty much idiots?
>There = their of course [hangs head in shame]