My recent piece on Judy Mikovits was based on a commentary written by two University-based scientists who presented a detailed history of her rise and fall. here is that post. https://rickjaffeesq.com/2020/08/09/the-other-side-of-the-judy-mikovits-story/
The commentary had two big and very specific scientific points, 1. that her result was that ME/CFS patients had an XMRV (mouse retrovirus) was false and that her findings of XMRV in the samples was just lab contamination. 2. she spiked her samples with a material (plasmid) that a researcher had sent her and that the material could not have come from the patients, as she claimed. I made no conclusion about either being true but said if either is true, the vaccine concerned shouldn’t listen to anything she says.
I missed something important in the commentary. It was pointed out that in 2012, she participated in a “replication” study, to see if she could duplicate her prior results. There had been several other prior studies that failed to replicate her results, but she tried to explain away all of them. But this time she participated in the study. And guess what. The replication study failed to replicate her prior findings. Here is the actual study, in which she is listed as a co-author.
It is discussed on page 548 of the Neil and Campbell commentary. (here is the commentary again) aid.2020.0095(1)
Arguably, the new study is a direct admission that she was wrong about her earlier paper and that her earlier results were just lab contamination. If so, then I suppose she gets some credit for agreeing to participate in the new study and allowing her name to be listed as an author in a study that refuted (again) her prior work.
But I still have no conclusion about her alleged spiking the samples which I think would be scientific fraud. It’s going to take someone with some lab/technical and scientific expertise to evaluate that claim. Between trying to listen to her book, reading the commentary, and the replication study, I’ve made up my mind. I have more important and pressing things to think about (hint, the UC flu mandate, and stay tuned for the next post), so I do not plan on addressing this subject in the future, that’s the hope and plan anyway.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.