Author Topic: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher  (Read 7307 times)

bullybeef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2011, 07:22:06 AM »
And interesting that the Alter/Lo paper, being a fully validated US federal HGRV study, remains unscathed. 

Funny that.

This has been nothing more that a high stakes game of poker, and Judy had to finally throw her job position in to keep her hand and integrity. 
BB

Angela Kennedy

  • Guest
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2011, 11:15:29 AM »
Well, FWIW, I've posted this below onto that article. If it appears on there, or not, please let me know.

Quote
In the interests of balance, people should be aware of the inflammatory comments Abbie Smith (the 'accuser' regarding the confused labelling of a powerpoint image, I understand) has repeatedly made against Judy Mikovits for a long time now. Smith, through her blog where she posts as 'ERV', has repeatedly attempted to smear Mikovits' good name and assault her integrity, though anonymous followers have also taken part in this. It has been shocking to watch. Comments from Abbie Smith (ERV) alone (without the others chiming in) include:

"It could TOTALLY be what Judy says it is NOW, she just 'forgot to label it' and 'forgot to talk about 5-AZA' in the Science paper! That is an excuse I had not expected. Judy should keep it in the bag for the next time one of these 'accidents' pops up. LOL!!...But Im sure Judy (or that damn post doc) just accidentally scanned the wrong image that just happened to have the pattern they 'saw' with their epigenetics assays"

"ATTENTION JUDY MIKOVITS AND WHITTEMORE PETERSON INSTITUTE: Game over. DONT F*** WITH SCIENTISTS. DONT F***K WITH SCIENTISTS." (please note the asterisks NOT used on the blog).

"I will not let Average Joes/Janes think this woman is scientifically trustworthy." (referring to Mikovits)

"Why do I get the feeling that this evidence does not exist, and Mikovits is just a gigantic fucking c**t?" (please note asterisks NOT used on the blog)

"So, now she is a deceitful, conniving, gigantic fucking c***" (please note asterisks NOT used on the blog)

"So once again, Mikovits is being manipulative, suggesting another groups scientific statements are actually personal attacks, 'attacking us', while providing no scientific response. Like a Creationist"

"Aaaaand now weve graduated from 'deceitful, conniving, gigantic fucking c***' to just good old fashioned dangerous. We are now well into Kook Kountry here"

"Judy Mikovits? You suck. Grow the f*** up and learn to be a scientist." (please note asterisks NOT used on the blog)

These are just a few examples. There are plenty more. I do not personally care about the rude words (I've only asterisked them in order to prevent ME being prevented from posting here, ironically!) - but it's the fact they are directly used to attack a scientist, Judy Mikovits, who was accused of having fire shooting out of her eyes and being a Joan of Arc (i.e religious fanatic and heretic) in Science journal last week! These attacks on a scientist are part of this story, as are many other things conveniently ignored in the press about this whole issue. Looking at this level of attack – one sees how there has been a concerted smear campaign going on. Now THIS should be investigated.

Billy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2011, 11:58:22 AM »
Rubbish. It's not 'misrepresenting'. If every academic who ever presented their data incorrectly, or changed presentation of data to make it easier for the audience to understand, was being treated like Judy Mikovits, academic chaos would ensue, and no academic would ever be able to progress in their career.

THIS being a prime example:

http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7233/515.2.full
...
Your lack of knowledge on key issues mean you are a wholly unreliable witness, and cannot be taken seriously as anything other than an agent provocateur.

The link you provide is a great example of science being self correcting.  An error was noticed and admitted, and then corrected.  The difference in this particular case is that it seems to be a mistake, not an intentional change.  It is you who are lacking key knowledge in this, not I.  And yes, intentionally changing your data IS misconduct.  I'm a bit confused why you would think otherwise.  And I realize that calling me "an agent provocateur" is a convenient way of trying to dismiss all of this but that doesn't change reality.  The reality is that she may or may not have problems due to this.  The jury isn't fully out yet.  She has come clean (albeit a bit late) and did not deny that the original gel was authentic or that the same image was used or that the labels were changed on two separate occasions.  That is a step in the right direction and it may be that this will all blow over and that she will continue on in a career in science in a different location.  Then again, perhaps not.  Time will tell.  The bottom line is that in a profession where honesty is important, doing something like that is a no no.  Again, mistakes happen, intentional alterations...frowned upon.

Angela Kennedy

  • Guest
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2011, 12:22:12 PM »
The link you provide is a great example of science being self correcting.  An error was noticed and admitted, and then corrected.  The difference in this particular case is that it seems to be a mistake, not an intentional change.  It is you who are lacking key knowledge in this, not I.  And yes, intentionally changing your data IS misconduct.  I'm a bit confused why you would think otherwise.  And I realize that calling me "an agent provocateur" is a convenient way of trying to dismiss all of this but that doesn't change reality.  The reality is that she may or may not have problems due to this.  The jury isn't fully out yet.  She has come clean (albeit a bit late) and did not deny that the original gel was authentic or that the same image was used or that the labels were changed on two separate occasions.  That is a step in the right direction and it may be that this will all blow over and that she will continue on in a career in science in a different location.  Then again, perhaps not.  Time will tell.  The bottom line is that in a profession where honesty is important, doing something like that is a no no.  Again, mistakes happen, intentional alterations...frowned upon.

Exactly the sort of inconsistent, cherry-picking answer I was expecting from you Billy.

The circumstances of this case are EXTREMELY SIMILAR to the Mikovits powerpoint issue - except the mistakes were actually more serious in Chalder and Wessely's case (being published in a journal paper and allowed to stand for over 6 years); Chalder and Wessely were not subject to any level of attack on their integrity at all; their blaming gremlins and BMJ reviewers accepted at face value; and Martin Bland never got the formal correction that he requested.

There is no more evidence that Mikovits was 'dishonest' any more than Chalder and Wessely were. Clearly Chalder and Wessely misrepresented their data i.e. their presentation of data was incorrect! But no immediate accusations of fraud or misconduct was thrown at them - or at all!

But it is very obvious you are not going to let the actual facts get in the way of your determination to take your part in a witch hunt against Mikovits. That's why you are an agent provocateur, an d a completely unreliable witness. Your flannelling doesn't change reality, however much you want it to.

Oh- hilarious comment about science 'self-correcting'. Your faith in such a notion displays an undergraduate knowledge at best. Once you start (if you ever do) REALLY getting into academia you will find yourself with a rude awakening, when you find there are many reasons, (studied by the academics and all!  ??? ::) ) why such a platitude is untenable.

Seriously, dude, it's clear you are not an actual academic. It wouldn't matter - except you are trying to pass yourself off as a researcher and scientist (from your very first post).

Billy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2011, 01:53:58 PM »
Exactly the sort of inconsistent, cherry-picking answer I was expecting from you Billy.

...
There is no more evidence that Mikovits was 'dishonest' any more than Chalder and Wessely were. Clearly Chalder and Wessely misrepresented their data i.e. their presentation of data was incorrect! But no immediate accusations of fraud or misconduct was thrown at them - or at all!

...

Oh- hilarious comment about science 'self-correcting'. Your faith in such a notion displays an undergraduate knowledge at best. Once you start (if you ever do) REALLY getting into academia you will find yourself with a rude awakening, when you find there are many reasons, (studied by the academics and all!  ??? ::) ) why such a platitude is untenable.

Seriously, dude, it's clear you are not an actual academic. It wouldn't matter - except you are trying to pass yourself off as a researcher and scientist (from your very first post).

Sigh, Angie Angie Angie, don't get your panties all up in a bunch here. 

First off, I'm not an undergrad.  Sorry, I finished grad school years ago.  Let me be clear about one thing, though;  I really don't care what you think of me.  You clearly are having trouble discerning reality from fantasy at this point so your opinion of me is rather moot. 

What matters are facts.  The fact is that Judy herself admitted to having intentionally misrepresented some data.  That is a FACT.  I disagree with that action and find it unacceptable (as does most of the scientific community).  That is another FACT.  That I'm taking part in a witch hunt is your OPINION.  I've already said that people should be too quick to come to conclusions on things that are not confirmed facts (like the "RT" on the original slide, or by giving her the benefit of the doubt initially that this was an accident which, by her own admission, I was incorrect in assuming).  I held those positions because there was not enough FACTS to support those claims at the time (and IMO still isn't pertaining to the RT issue).

As for cherry picking, you simply seem unable to tell the difference between making a conscious choice to misrepresent data and making a mistake in, say, statistics.  No worries, though.  In all honestly, your opinion on this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.

Billy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2011, 01:55:05 PM »
"I've already said that people should be too quick to come to conclusions"="I've already said that people should not be too quick to come to conclusions"

asleep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2011, 02:44:40 PM »
Billy, you keep saying "misrepresenting" which is a subjective interpretation of what happened that is heavily laden with negative connotations. "Misrepresenting" strongly implies intent to deceive with respect to the spirit and interpretation of the data. You haven't made a very strong case that her Ottawa slide presentation skewed the spirit of the data. Nor have you made a case that she intended to deceive. Instead you are fixating on an arbitrary technicality of data presentation (which incidentally falls on a continuous spectrum of synthesis or "representation"--all the way from presenting the actual raw data (the gel) to verbally presenting without any visual display at all) and justifying your incense by appealing to "the way it's done" in "the scientific community."

Judy did indeed explain how she represented the data for the conference. In no objective sense whatsoever did she admit to misrepresenting the data. Stop trying to pawn off your interpretations as fact.

ETA: You are making a fundamental attribution error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:36:03 PM by asleep »

Mark3981

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2011, 02:56:00 PM »
The two-year long campaign to discredit the retroviral findings in ME patients continues, even to a patient forum where three anonymous 'members' (only seen on threads like this) do all they can to twist the knife, yet refuse to discuss any other matter, even highly relevant ones like the fraudulent PACE trial.   Place this in the context of what happened to DeFreitas in 1991 or thereabouts.  Remember that retroviruses have been found in pwME four separate times now, and that the virus found in 1997 was recently sequenced and uploaded to Genbank, proving to be an HGRV.

Look at the way the label XMRV is used to refer, by these people, only to the VP62 strain, which has proved to be contamination, and yet it actually describes a much wider group of HGRVs.  Look at how every negative piece of news gets all the space available in the media, yet important confirmatory findings are hardly mentioned in the press. 

Cheers to that! It is now obvious to the 95% who always fell for it in the past!

Boy, this makes things kind of uncomfortable for those trying still trying to hide the truth.  :P

WooT!




bullybeef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2011, 03:00:46 PM »
Alter and Lo's PNAS wasn't even reported in the UK, even though it reach the likes of Tehran!!
BB

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2011, 03:10:24 PM »
Sigh, Angie Angie Angie, don't get your panties all up in a bunch here. 

First off, I'm not an undergrad.  Sorry, I finished grad school years ago.  Let me be clear about one thing, though;  I really don't care what you think of me.  You clearly are having trouble discerning reality from fantasy at this point so your opinion of me is rather moot. 

What matters are facts.  The fact is that Judy herself admitted to having intentionally misrepresented some data.  That is a FACT.  I disagree with that action and find it unacceptable (as does most of the scientific community).  That is another FACT.  That I'm taking part in a witch hunt is your OPINION.  I've already said that people should be too quick to come to conclusions on things that are not confirmed facts (like the "RT" on the original slide, or by giving her the benefit of the doubt initially that this was an accident which, by her own admission, I was incorrect in assuming).  I held those positions because there was not enough FACTS to support those claims at the time (and IMO still isn't pertaining to the RT issue).

As for cherry picking, you simply seem unable to tell the difference between making a conscious choice to misrepresent data and making a mistake in, say, statistics.  No worries, though.  In all honestly, your opinion on this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.

Frank Ruscetti and Judy Mikovits have done nothing, they have admitted nothing other than being rushed.

You however are making false accusations against them both.

Can I remind you that is illegal.
"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

asleep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2011, 03:19:23 PM »
Cheers to that! It is now obvious to the 95% who always fell for it in the past!

Boy, this makes things kind of uncomfortable for those trying still trying to hide the truth.  :P

WooT!

At some point, the strangely perfect association of "fraud" and "malfeasance" with scientific discoveries that hold the potential to expose longstanding issues with vaccination and/or government negligence becomes so highly improbable as to render Coffin's immaculate recombination relatively commonplace. If only there were a way to bet on whether certain discoveries will later be drowned out in a circus of "fraud" accusations.

Dr. Yes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2011, 03:30:13 PM »
In all honestly, your opinion on this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. 

As is yours, by the same token.

Quote
It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.

No, the final judgment on the issue in question will be passed by the editors of Science magazine, not the scientific community.  There is no democratic representation for the scientific community - no means to vote or poll or any way to accurately and objectively reflect the "community's" opinion (without external pressure that could affect 'voting').  I find it humorous that so many professional scientists, when speaking to laypeople, describe the profession and their peers in gaudily idealistic terms, whereas within many actual research settings such comments would provoke laughter.  Consensus can be manipulated, forced or bought, as anyone in research knows.  There are of course plenty of honest scientists, but due to excessive sub-specialization most do not feel comfortable analyzing issues outside of their areas and therefore defer to the 'authorities' in the specialty in question, who themselves may be politically motivated.

The real issue here is the value of the data in the non-retracted portion of the Lombardi et al 2009 study.  Even if this figure is pulled, the rest of the data remains solid and points to a very important potential association between MLV-related viruses and CFS.  The second Lombardi et al study provides evidence for an association between MLV-related viruses and cancer in CFS patients.  As long as the experimental validity of the bulk of the data is not in question, it needs to be properly investigated, and talk of total retraction as promoted by Stoye (long before this latest discussion) is anti-scientific.   
-"Remember what the doctor said?"
 
-"Of course: Grandpa Seth is an invention of my subconscious."

Angela Kennedy

  • Guest
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2011, 04:13:07 PM »
Sigh, Angie Angie Angie, don't get your panties all up in a bunch here. 

First off, I'm not an undergrad.  Sorry, I finished grad school years ago.  Let me be clear about one thing, though;  I really don't care what you think of me.  You clearly are having trouble discerning reality from fantasy at this point so your opinion of me is rather moot. 

What matters are facts.  The fact is that Judy herself admitted to having intentionally misrepresented some data.  That is a FACT.  I disagree with that action and find it unacceptable (as does most of the scientific community).  That is another FACT.  That I'm taking part in a witch hunt is your OPINION.  I've already said that people should be too quick to come to conclusions on things that are not confirmed facts (like the "RT" on the original slide, or by giving her the benefit of the doubt initially that this was an accident which, by her own admission, I was incorrect in assuming).  I held those positions because there was not enough FACTS to support those claims at the time (and IMO still isn't pertaining to the RT issue).

As for cherry picking, you simply seem unable to tell the difference between making a conscious choice to misrepresent data and making a mistake in, say, statistics.  No worries, though.  In all honestly, your opinion on this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.

Yes Billy, what matters are indeed, facts.

Which you are not presenting.

If you truly were a 'scientist', I would expect you to be accountable under your own name. That you do not use your own name indicates you do not understand the concepts of accountability, especially in terms of science and academia.

All you are doing is throwing rhetorical mud at both Judy Mikovits - and people like myself for challenging you here. Your arguments are fallacious, not based on the facts, you are clearly naive of academic issues. You don't even write with the tentativeness of a true scientist - or indeed, even social scientist.

This mounting evidence indicates we cannot trust you are a 'scientist' at all.

What is funny, is that you have come on here, DESPERATE to try and spread your word, and then you say this:

Quote
It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.

Anyone who knows about science and its processes knows there can never be a 'final judgement' on scientific issues. I think you need to go and read some Popper and Kuhn, for starters.

Plus- for all your appeals to authority- you are not a scientist! You are a strange, aggy anon on a forum for desperately ill patients and their supporters, pretending to be a scientist. You could be an abbatoir worker on his day off for all I, or anyone knows.

You are a wholly unreliable witness, and cannot be taken seriously.

Jaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2982
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2011, 04:53:45 PM »
Quote
"This is the problem of people trying to interpret lab jargon," says Ruscetti.

To me, that says it all. 

And Billy, how dare you come here and mistreat Angela Kennedy.  You may have started out as a "nice guy" but you've shown your true colors today.  You're definitely a troll.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 04:56:18 PM by starryeyes »
The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Gandhi

Tango

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Paprotka et al. 2011 is a bust!
Re: Naturenews Integrity issue follows fired researcher
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2011, 05:01:00 PM »
Yes, I agree.  If you don't know that Lombardi et al is denatured or non denatured and you claim to have experience you are a moron.

It's way above your head.
"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