http://www.x-rx.net/blog/2012/06/criminal-charges-dismissed-against-dr-mikovits.html
Judy Mikovits was a key XMRV researcher at the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in Nevada, US, before being fired and charged by WPI in a battle that left the ME/CFS community shaking it's heads. All charges have now been dropped. Dr Jamie Deckoff-Jones writes a short piece about it on her blog:
http://www.x-rx.net/blog/2012/06/criminal-charges-dismissed-against-dr-mikovits.html
0 Comments
A Twitter tweet from the June 1 London 'Invest in ME Conference' has Dr. Daniel Peterson announcing that the Lipkin study is completed, with an expected release date of June 30, 2012. Virus hunter Ian Lipkin, MD, at Columbia has been heading up what he calls "the XMRV/MLV/CFS/ME study" to search for evidence of viruses in blood samples from a well-characterized, geographically-distributed US cohort of ME/CFS patients, using cutting edge virus-detecting technology.
We'll keep you posted! Lo/Alter Retract pMLV Finding in CFS
by CORT on DECEMBER 27, 2011. Edited by ME/CFS Assist for grammar and syntax only. Just fours days after the editors of Science took it upon themselves to retract the 2008 Science paper, Lo/Alter, the authors of the FDA study at [who at] one time championed as proof that a family of XMRV-like viruses was present in ME/CFS, have retracted their PNAS findings as well. In their conclusion to be published next week they stated: "Although a more definitive, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)–sponsored, coded panel of samples from 150 well-characterized and geographically diverse CFS patients and controls is being assembled for further study, in consideration of the aggregate data from our own laboratory and that of others, it is our current view that the association of murine gamma retroviruses with CFS has not withstood the test of time or of independent verification and that this association is now tenuous. Therefore, we retract the conclusions in our article.” The Alter/Lo retraction deepens one conundrum as they reported that extensive tests for contamination tests still failed to find any. Their retraction rested on:
(Lipkin’s scenario seems a bit tenuous. The idea that the WPI researchers had found a contaminant (XMRV) that just happened to look like another retrovirus (MLVs) that was present seems highly improbable; the equivalent of a researcher throwing a dart into a milky way of genetic sequences and just happening to land on the right one. If XMRV was present in CFS patients then the idea of similar ‘HGRVs’ made sense; if it wasn’t (ie if it was just a contaminant) then it beggared the mind to think the WPI would, by happenstance, happen to find another retrovirus that looked similar to it.) Agonizingly Powerful Technology - If anything the XMRV/pMLV saga underscores a technology (PCR) whose sensitivity has, to some extent, outrun researchers ability to easily interpret it. Hanson’s report that she could find the virus in one PCR machine but not the other and Singh’s conclusion that a supposedly clean machine harbored XMRV-like sequences underscored how difficult it is to interpret positive results in this field. Both researchers undertook painstaking and time-consuming re-examinations of their work before they were able to conclude their results were due to contamination. Despite calls from colleagues to do the same the WPI does not appear to have investigated the issue rigorously until Silverman found evidence of contamination in his samples. At that point the WPI used an independent lab to determine whether contamination was present in their samples; that lab found contamination in at least some of the WPI’s samples. Last Chance for XMRV – Dr. Mikovits and Dr. Ruscetti are in the odd situation of agreeing with all the findings; they accept that contamination was present in the original study and also believe that XMRV as well as XMRV-like sequences are present as well. Dr. Mikovits will, with Dr. Ruscetti, be looking for ‘XMRV’ in the Lipkin NAIAD study due to wrap up, David Tuller of the New York Times reported, in March of next year.
Researcher Confesses: Implicates Dr. Mikovits in Theft of Materials from Whittemore Peterson Institute ("WPI")
by CORT on NOVEMBER 22, 2011 Dr. Judy Mikovits has had a difficult couple of months. First the BWG study indicated the tests she developed for XMRV were not valid, then evidence of contamination resulted in a partial retraction of the original Science paper, then she was accused of doctoring a photo at a conference and in the original Science paper prompting several investigation, then she was terminated from her job at the WPI, then she was served with a lawsuit claiming that she had stolen data from the WPI and since last week, she’s being in the Ventura County jail waiting arraignment as a fugitive from justice because, against court orders, she crossed the Nevada border into California. She must be wondering if it could get any worse. It has - but first some background. The latest episode began with a lawsuit filed by the WPI a month after Dr. Mikovits termination claiming that Dr. Mikovits had taken critical notebooks and flash drives from the WPI after she was fired. According to ScienceInsider Dr Mikovits had the only key to the desk the notebooks were kept in. After Dr. Mikovits termination the WPI had the desk manufacturer open the desk for them and found it empty of her and other researchers notebooks. A source at the WPI said that it was her understanding that Dr. Mikovits desk had been ‘emptied out’ and up to five years research data was gone. They then served notice of the theft to the police and a police investigation began. Why are these laboratory notebooks so important? Because they serve as the document of record in scientific research and are specially manufactured and used in specific ways….. WIKIPEDIA – A lab notebook is a primary record of research…..To ensure that the data cannot be easily altered, notebooks with permanently bound and numbered pages are often recommended. Researchers are often encouraged to write only with unereasable pen, to sign and date each page, and to have their notebooks inspected periodically by another scientist who can read and understand it. All of these guidelines can be useful in proving exactly when a discovery was made, in the case of a patent dispute. After several failed attempts to get the materials back the WPI filed a lawsuit a month later to compel Dr. Mikovits to return notebooks, flash drives, information on her laptop computer and information in her email account. In a blog titled “Wings of Hope: Our Responsibility” the WPI stated that the failed efforts to get the materials back forced had forced them to engage in ‘costly litigation”. The data loss included 12-20 notebooks dating back five years. The WPI stated that, "the costs of legal action pale in comparison to the years of expenses incurred for researcher salaries, equipment, and supplies to generate this valuable work”. (Dr. Mikovits contract stipulated that all intellectual property she produced while under the employ of the WPI was the property of the WPI.) The WPI also won a temporary restraining order stopping Dr. Mikovits from “destroying, deleting or altering’ any of the materials that may be in her position. For her part, through her attorney Dr. Mikovits stated that she received notice of her firing on her cell phone and then immediately left for her home in Southern California without visiting the Institute again. She stated she had placed her keys in unlocked drawers in her lab as was her custom so that other lab personnel would have access to the notebooks. Her attorney stated that: Dr. Mikovits was not and is not in possession of the lab notebooks or any WPI intellectual property. A number of individuals have keys to the office and lab, including the administrative staff, lab staff and custodial. Instead of Dr. Mikovits returning the materials her attorney requested that her notebooks be returned to her so she can continue to work on the grants she won while employed at the WPI. Her attorney stated that: "Dr. Mikovits’ notebooks, as well as those of the employees whom she supervised, should be returned to Dr. Mikovits so she can fulfill her responsibilities as PI on these government grants and corporate contacts". The WPI lawsuit does not request just the return of the materials; if found guilty it also requests that Dr. Mikovits be liable for attorneys fees, punitive damages and other damages to be proven at trial – potentially leaving Dr. Mikovits with a substantial financial burden if the WPI prevails. The Judge overseeing the case ordered Dr. Mikovits not to leave the state of Nevada until the case was resolved. Dr. Mikovits left Nevada and was reportedly arrested at her home in Ventura County on the 18th on felony charges of fleeing justice. She was not allowed to post bail and is being arraigned today. Research Assistant Confesses Theft - in a legal filing pertaining to a preliminary injunction against Dr. Judy Mikovits the Whittemore Peterson Institute provided evidence late last night that Dr. Mikovits engineered the theft of the research materials from the WPI lab after her termination. In an affidavit Max Pfost, a researcher working at the Max Pfost, admitted that he removed the documents/flash drives at Dr. Mikovits behest the morning after her termination. According to Pfost’s affidavit, upon hearing of her termination Dr. Mikovits called him and told him that the WPI would ‘go down’. She then met him in a bar and provided him with the keys he needed to take ‘patient samples’, lab notebooks and other information. Pfost attempted to gain entry to the WPI that night but was unable to and entered the building the next morning when it was unlocked. Pfost then removed between 12-20 heavy notebooks containing approximately five years of research work from Dr. Mikovits, Pfost and two other researchers. Unable to fit all the notebooks into his backpack Pfost carried others out in his arms to his car and then to his apartment where he hid them in a “Happy Birthday” bag. Realizing that the WPI was searching for them he then moved them to his mothers' house. Dr. Mikovits requested that he mail them to her at her house but Pfost protested that the size and the weight of the notebooks made them too expensive to mail. After confessing to his mother that he had stolen the notebooks Pfost removed them from her house and returned them to his condominium. Mikovits In Hiding – Shortly after meeting Dr. Mikovits early in the morning at the Reno airport Pfost handed over the notebooks and other materials to her. Dr. Mikovits informed Pfost that she was hiding out on a boat to avoid being served papers by the WPI and requested that he inform her of the whereabouts of WPI employees to avoid detection. Attempted Removal of Biological Materials as Well – According to the affadavit Dr. Mikovits also attempted to have biological materials including cell lines and blood samples removed from the labs as well. At Dr. Mikovits behest Pfost attempted to recruit other WPI employees to remove these materials from the lab and send them to Dr. Ruscetti. According to the affidavit research assistant Amanda McKenzie, declined to do so. The Stolen Materials – A WPI filing asserts that the WPI uses the stolen materials on a ‘daily basis’ and cannot proceed on critical areas of research without it. WPI needs the Misappropriated Property to research effectively, continue ongoing experiments and studies, communicate with research subjects effectively, apply for patents, recruit researchers, and obtain grants to help find a cure for those patients suffering with NID. Law Enforcement in Charge – A misunderstanding has arisen about the WPI’s role in Dr. Mikovits arrest. When the WPI realized important documents were missing they reported the theft of the materials to the police. At that point a police investigation was launched; based on the facts of that investigation and the lawsuit filed by the WPI, the Judge overseeing the case produced the initial restraining order stopping Dr. Mikovits from altering or destroying the documents or leaving the state of Nevada. Once Dr. Mikovits left the state of Nevada she was subject to arrest. On Nov 17th a warrant was issued for her arrest and she was arrested last Friday. Dr. Mikovits fate is now in the hands of the legal system. The police will determine whether or not to bring charges. Felony Theft - When a person steals property, the market value of the property will dictate whether the theft is classified a felony. Under Nevada law, if the value of the stolen property exceeds $250, the crime is a felony. When the value exceeds $2,500, the crime becomes grand theft, punishable by one-to-five years in state prison and up to $10,000 in fines. If Dr. Mikovits has the documents she certainly has good reason to return them. The WPI’s lawsuit, which was filed over a month ago, asked for legal fees, punitive damages and other damages. Furthermore Dr. Mikovits has been charged with two felonies; avoiding justice and stealing property from the WPI. In the state of Nevada the market value of the product stolen determines how a theft is classified. Thefts above $250 are considered felonies; thefts above $2,500 are considered ‘grand theft’ and are punishable by 1-5 years in jail and up to $10,000 in fines. According to the affadivit the documents in question represent 5 years of work. A hearing is scheduled today in Nevada at 1pm PST regarding the preliminary injunction which will expire after tonight. via the NYT Carl Zimmer, June 25, 2011 ONE of the great strengths of science is that it can fix its own mistakes. “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong,” the astrophysicist Carl Sagan once said. “That’s perfectly all right: it’s the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process.” If only it were that simple. Scientists can certainly point with pride to many self-corrections, but science is not like an iPhone; it does not instantly auto-correct. As a series of controversies over the past few months have demonstrated, science fixes its mistakes more slowly, more fitfully and with more difficulty than Sagan’s words would suggest. Science runs forward better than it does backward. Why? One simple answer is that it takes a lot of time to look back over other scientists’ work and replicate their experiments. Scientists are busy people, scrambling to get grants and tenure. As a result, papers that attract harsh criticism may nonetheless escape the careful scrutiny required if they are to be refuted. In May, for instance, the journal Science published eight critiques of a controversial paper that it had run in December. In the paper, a team of scientists described a species of bacteria that seemed to defy the known rules of biology by using arsenic instead of phosphorus to build its DNA. Chemists and microbiologists roundly condemned the paper; in the eight critiques, researchers attacked the study for using sloppy techniques and failing to rule out more plausible alternatives. But none of those critics had actually tried to replicate the initial results. That would take months of research: getting the bacteria from the original team of scientists, rearing them, setting up the experiment, gathering results and interpreting them. Many scientists are leery of spending so much time on what they consider a foregone conclusion, and graduate students are reluctant because they want their first experiments to make a big splash, not confirm what everyone already suspects. “I’ve got my own science to do,” John Helmann, a microbiologist at Cornell and a critic of the Science paper, told Nature. The most persistent critic, Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, announced this month on her blog that she would try to replicate the original results — but only the most basic ones, and only for the sake of science’s public reputation. “Scientifically I think trying to replicate the claimed results is a waste of time,” she wrote in an e-mail. For now, the original paper has not been retracted; the results still stand. Even when scientists rerun an experiment, and even when they find that the original result is flawed, they still may have trouble getting their paper published. The reason is surprisingly mundane: journal editors typically prefer to publish groundbreaking new research, not dutiful replications. In March, for instance, Daryl Bem, a psychologist at Cornell University, shocked his colleagues by publishing a paper in a leading scientific journal, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which he presented the results of experiments showing, he claimed, that people’s minds could be influenced by events in the future, as if they were clairvoyant. Three teams of scientists promptly tried to replicate his results. All three teams failed. All three teams wrote up their results and submitted them to The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. And all three teams were rejected — but not because their results were flawed. As the journal’s editor, Eliot Smith, explained to The Psychologist, a British publication, the journal has a longstanding policy of not publishing replication studies. “This policy is not new and is not unique to this journal,” he said. As a result, the original study stands. Even when follow-up studies manage to see the light of day, they still don’t necessarily bring matters to a close. Sometimes the original authors will declare the follow-up studies to be flawed and refuse to retract their paper. Such a standoff is now taking place over a controversial claim that chronic fatigue syndrome is caused by a virus. In October 2009, the virologist Judy Mikovits and colleagues reported in Science that people with chronic fatigue syndrome had high levels of a virus called XMRV. They suggested that XMRV might be the cause of the disorder. Several other teams have since tried — and failed — to find XMRV in people with chronic fatigue syndrome. As they’ve published their studies over the past year, skepticism has grown. The editors of Science asked the authors of the XMRV study to retract their paper. But the scientists refused; Ms. Mikovits declared that a retraction would be “premature.” The editors have since published an “editorial expression of concern.” Once again, the result still stands. But perhaps not forever. Ian Lipkin, a virologist at Columbia University who is renowned in scientific circles for discovering new viruses behind mysterious outbreaks, is also known for doing what he calls “de-discovery”: intensely scrutinizing controversial claims about diseases. Last September, Mr. Lipkin laid out several tips for effective de-discovery in the journal Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. He recommended engaging other scientists — including those who published the original findings — as well as any relevant advocacy groups (like those for people suffering from the disease in question). Together, everyone must agree on a rigorous series of steps for the experiment. Each laboratory then carries out the same test, and then all the results are gathered together. At the request of the National Institutes of Health, Mr. Lipkin is running just such a project with Ms. Mikovits and other researchers to test the link between viruses and chronic fatigue, based on a large-scale study of 300 subjects. He expects results by the end of this year. This sort of study, however, is the exception rather than the rule. If the scientific community put more value on replication — by setting aside time, money and journal space — science would do a better job of living up to Carl Sagan’s words. Carl Zimmer writes frequently for The New York Times about science and is the author, most recently, of “A Planet of Viruses.” WPI Says No to Retraction Request/ Levy Study Dashes Hopes /NCI Shuts the Door on XMRV
by Cort via Phoenix Rising Forums Published on June 1st, 2011 06:01 AM WPI Response - Dr. Mikovits response to the request for retraction started off with a blast -at none other than the editor in chief of the most influential science journal in the world over what appeared to be a relatively minor issue - a day or so breach in a papers embargo - which she called “gross disregard for the integrity of the scientific process”
via Whittemore Peterson Institute; May 9, 2011 While WPI researchers continue to review the data presented by Dr. Singh, we believe that it is important to correct and clarify information regarding this study. Several individuals were consented to participate in this study as positive controls to enable Dr. Singh to develop assays to detect multiple variants of XMRV. Of these, only three were from the original Lombardi et al. cohort, two of whom were among those positive for a XMRV. A XMRV was isolated from one of those patient's PBMCs, cloned and fully sequenced (GenBank® accession number GQ 497343 as identified in the NIH genetic sequence database). Sequence data demonstrates that this virus is clearly distinct from XMRV (vp62) and 22Rv1. A budding virus particle from that sample was pictured in an electron micrograph in Lombardi et al. Virus from that patient sample was also transmitted both from the PBMCs and plasma to an uninfected indicator cell line, LNCaP. Finally, these results were supported by a separate lab using serological methods as reported by Lombardi et al. Twelve additional samples from individuals not included in the Lombardi et al. study were independently collected by a third party and sent directly to Dr. Singh’s lab. Some of these subjects were positive for highly related sequences, including the polytropic and modified polytropic sequences identified by Lo et al., as determined by the WPI prior to the publication of the Singh study. Many of those subjects were also positive for ENV antibodies to a XMRV (vp62 and other XMRV family members), indicating that these patients had an immune response to a XMRV. In addition, WPI investigators and others have provided evidence of sequence diversity between a XMRV (vp62), other similar XMRVs detected by WPI (designated internally with a number corresponding to a clinical isolate), a XMRV (p variant), and other related human gamma retroviruses. Therefore, we believe that it is vitally important that investigators interested in furthering the understanding of blood borne XMRV as a human pathogen use a proven positive clinical isolate as the control when developing tests to detect this newly discovered human retrovirus. WPI and the U.S. clinical laboratory performing XMRV tests pursuant to a license agreement with WPI have extensive controls in place to prevent and detect contamination. Approximately three thousand tests have been performed on patient samples to date using clinically validated tests; about one third have been found to be positive. Multiple sequences from these three thousand samples have been submitted to GenBank® and are awaiting publication. It is critical, in light of these findings, that all treatment decisions are left to physicians and their patients, including the use of antiretrovirals. While WPI researchers acknowledge that there is still much to be learned about the lifecycle and in vivoreservoirs of this family of human gamma retroviruses, we remain confident in the results reported in Science by Lombardi et al. Most importantly, we are committed to human gamma retroviral research in neuro-immune disease and will continue to offer our help to the medical and scientific community when requested. by Cort via Phoenix Rising Forums
Published on May 5th, 2011 12:50 PM
Ian Lipkin on XMRV
6 MAY 2011 Late last year virologist Ian Lipkin was asked by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Anthony Fauci to coordinate a multi-center study of CFS patients. Newly drawn blood samples from 100 CFS patients and 100 healthy controls from around the US will be blinded and sent to three groups – FDA, CDC and the Whittemore Peterson Institute – and assayed for the presence of XMRV. After the recent publication by Ila Singh on XMRV in CFS patients, Dr. Lipkin sent me the following note: Dear Vince- We have a plethora of explanations for how CFS/XMRV/MLV studies could go awry. However, we don’t have evidence that they have. Absent an appropriately powered study representing blinded analyses by Mikovitz and Lo/Alter of samples from well characterized subjects using their reagents, protocols and people, all we have is more confusion. I remain agnostic. We won’t have answers until the end of 2011. The NIH will post something on our study today. Ian Another XMRV/MLV study bites the dust ... every study that WPI is involved in seems t
Clifford H. Shin1, Lucinda Bateman2, Robert Schlaberg1, Ashley M. Bunker3, Christopher J. Leonard1, Ronald W. Hughen4, Alan R. Light4, Kathleen C. Light4, and Ila R. Singh1,* 1 Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt lake City, Utah, 84112 2 Fatigue Consultation Clinic, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102 3 ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108 4 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112 * Corresponding author: Mailing address: Emma Eccles Jones Medical Research Building, Department of Pathology, 15 North Medical Drive East, Suite #2100, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, Phone: (801) 213-3737, Fax: (801) 585-7376, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a multi-system disorder characterizedby prolonged and severe fatigue that is not relieved by rest.Attempts to treat CFS have been largely ineffective primarilybecause the etiology of the disorder is unknown. Recently CFShas been associated with xenotropic murine leukemia virus-relatedvirus (XMRV) as well as other murine leukemia virus (MLV)-relatedviruses, though not all studies have found these associations.We collected blood samples from 100 CFS patients and 200 self-reportedhealthy volunteers from the same geographical area. We analyzedthese in a blinded manner using molecular, serological and viralreplication assays. We also analyzed samples from patients inthe original study that reported XMRV in CFS. We did not findXMRV or related MLVs, either as viral sequences or infectiousvirus, nor did we find antibodies to these viruses in any ofthe patient samples, including those from the original study.We show that at least some of the discrepancy with previousstudies is due to the presence of trace amounts of mouse DNAin the Taq polymerase enzymes used in these previous studies.Our findings do not support an association between CFS and MLV-relatedviruses including XMRV and off-label use of antiretrovirals for the treatment of CFS does not seem justified at present. |
AuthorI have lived with ME/CFS for fourteen years, nine of them totally bed-bound. I post about ME/CFS and related health and advocacy issues such as vaccination, EMFs, radiation and GM foods from the perspective of a holistic practitioner interested in healing our bodies, relationships, societies and mother Earth. My approach integrates science and spirit and includes the best of alternative and allopathc healing modalities and research. Archives
April 2013
Categories
All
|