Author Topic: ERV may be quitting virology after this latest blog sham -2 false claims in blog  (Read 20416 times)

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
This is shocking.  I won't post a link, but you will know where to find it.

ERV has switched the labels from one western blot in Lombard et al. that was looking for the presence of ENV protein and ascribed them to the western blot data presented by Mikovits in Canada, when that western blot was constructed to detect the presence of GAG protein. The control lane in the western blot data was for gag protein and not env protein as claimed by ERV.

Here is Mikovits slide from Canada.  As you can see it is a WB using goat antibody to gag. 





Lane 8 cannot refer to SFFV env because she is testing for gag.

I will post the 2 Western Blots from Lombardi et al. at the bottom of the screen.  This is the description in Lombardi that goes with them.

Quote
(C) Lysates of activated PBMCs from healthy donors (lanes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7) or
from CFS patients (lanes 3 and 6) were analyzed by Western blots using rat
mAb to SFFV Env (top panel) or goat antiserum to MLV p30 Gag (bottom
panel). Lane 8, SFFV-infected HCD-57 cells. Molecular weight (MW) markers
in kilodaltons are at left.

As you can see the top one that ERV uses the labels from is western blots using rat mAb to SFFV Env (top panel)
As you can see the bottom one that ERV then takes the gel from is the western blot using goat antiserum to MLV p30 Gag (bottom panel).

So ERV would you like to explain why you don't know your env from you gag?

ERVs new creation is below the Lombardi et al. western blots.






« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 04:39:29 PM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

hatshepsut

  • Guest


She is saying this:

Quote
...or is this a case of arrogant, bold-faced, lazy-ass scientific fraud perpetrated by an apparent pathological liar?


She is hiding behind a question mark, but still I think this most be grounds for a courtcase against her.


meeker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
I'm confused.

ERV is saying that the WPI used different labels for the same slide.

V99 is now saying that ERV switched the labels herself, and is claiming the WPI did this?  Is this right?  It doesn't make sense to me.  Which of the slides is it that ERV is meant to have altered? 

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
There are 2 WB in Lombardi fig 2C. 

The labels on the top one don't apply to the bottom one. 

She, or her mysterious crapologist, has said the labels in the top slide (Env) go with the slide from Canada, which it cannot because the Canada slide is Gag.

The control is not the same.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 10:58:39 AM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

meeker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
I see.  So both slides are meant to refer to the same thing?

I hadn't gone back to the Science paper, as I assumed that the WPI had just used the wrong image in a slide.

Is the labelling that was used at the IACFS/ME conference also included in the Science paper?  Just from the figure on ERV's blog, it does look like the labelling is meant to refer to both, so I understand why they'd think it does.

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
I see.  So both slides are meant to refer to the same thing?

I hadn't gone back to the Science paper, as I assumed that the WPI had just used the wrong image in a slide.

Is the labelling that was used at the IACFS/ME conference also included in the Science paper?  Just from the figure on ERV's blog, it does look like the labelling is meant to refer to both, so I understand why they'd think it does.

The two WB in Lombardi are different.

Mikovits has done nothing.

The slide at the conference is gag data.  The control for that is HCD-57, not SFFV.  SFFV is only used for env.

The top one of the 2 WB is the one the headings go with. 

« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 11:59:27 AM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

meeker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
I can't see the labelling in the Science paper that mentions 5-AZA and fits with the labelling from the conference.

Unless I missed something, and there's labelling in Science that I didn't see, it seems more likely that there was an error with the IACFS slide.  What do you think?

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
I can't see the labelling in the Science paper that mentions 5-AZA and fits with the labelling from the conference.

Unless I missed something, and there's labelling in Science that I didn't see, it seems more likely that there was an error with the IACFS slide.  What do you think?
The only error is on ERV blog Meeker.

I have ask Gerwyn if he has a comment on this, he has given me an email response, but says he is too busy to give more feedback at the moment.

Quote
ERV has accused Dr Mikovits of presenting western blot data in Canada which was an exact replica of a slide already published in Lombardi with the aim of decieving her audience.

This according to ERV represented Dr Mikovit's data

Its quite clear, there are 8 lanes.

    1-- Normal
    2-- Normal
    3-- 1235
    4-- Normal
    5-- Normal
    6-- 1236
    7-- Normal
    8-- SFFV-infected HCD-57


This is the equivalent wetern blot data presented in Lombardi et al.





Now this is the data presented by Dr Mikovits in Ottawa.





Do they look the same to you

ERV has assumed that the labels given to the lanes in the top diagram in figure C also apply to the bottom diagram

Had she understood any of the data, she would have realised that this is not possible, because the top diagram referrs to a western blot looking at the presence of env protein and lane 8 the control lane is a control for the env protein, while the bottom diagram refers to a western blot of GAG and lane 8 is a control for a GAG protein.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 04:40:36 PM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

hatshepsut

  • Guest
I can't see the labelling in the Science paper that mentions 5-AZA and fits with the labelling from the conference.

Unless I missed something, and there's labelling in Science that I didn't see, it seems more likely that there was an error with the IACFS slide.  What do you think?


Meeker, you dont think the error is on ERV's side?

Ash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
  • Insert Witty Comment Here
the point is that the images that are supposed to have been created separately are the same & just different sizes/contrast etc & when laid on top of each other match perfectly, closer to impossible than improbable that the shape of the blobs would come out the same.

So either a slide creation snafu (most likely) or evidence of WPI fraud (ERV's conclusion)

What the slides actually represent is irrelevant.

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
No they don't match.  They have had to move the lanes closer for one and still there are reasons why they don't match.


« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 04:51:48 PM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

Angela Kennedy

  • Guest
Is Judy Mikovits aware of what ERV is claiming?

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Is Judy Mikovits aware of what ERV is claiming?

Yes people have told the WPI and what Dr Shepherd has said too.

I have added another image to the post above so you can see the original ERV one below the comparison of the slide from canada over ERVs doctored one.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 01:05:29 PM by V99 »
"I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate." Woodward

"I would favor any name that does not impose (or give the appearance of imposing) taxonomic preconceptions on the nomenclature." Coffin

bullybeef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
I suppose we have to be interested to understand who this ERV is, as much as a potty mouth he/she is.

We have all known for sometime now that he/she is a clear denialist, but what is in it for him/her? Whomever it is, they are probably someone whom we already know, or at least a student of someone else involved in HGRV anti-propaganda.

Personally, I think resorting to dirty tactics screams of desperation, and they are now even breaking the law to prove their point. It is time these people get what they deserve. If they think HGRVs are nonsense, I challenge them to a transfusion of HGRV infected blood/serum. I bet they would change the tune then.

Cowards!
BB

Superjump

  • Guest
I suppose we have to be interested to understand who this ERV is, as much as a potty mouth he/she is.

We have all known for sometime now that he/she is a clear denialist, but what is in it for him/her? Whomever it is, they are probably someone whom we already know, or at least a student of someone else involved in HGRV anti-propaganda.

Personally, I think resorting to dirty tactics screams of desperation, and they are now even breaking the law to prove their point. It is time these people get what they deserve. If they think HGRVs are nonsense, I challenge them to a transfusion of HGRV infected blood/serum. I bet they would change the tune then.

Cowards!

I probably supported a few things in my youth I later came to regret. I imagine I'll do it again as an adult.

Sometimes a feeling of acceptance (support of vocal big names in Science, or the widespread media campaign that fell off the shelf at the same time as the BWG P3 results being published) is enough motivation.

The thing that strikes me most reading ERV and many of its comment givers is that they are guilty of the types of behaviour they identify in their adversaries. They speak of themselves as Scientists with some kind of collective power for good, but there's so much leading, assumption and speculation that any claim to moral superiority evaporates very quickly.

Since the data cannot speak for itself, it has had a voice attached to it.