Another Piece to the Other Side of the Judy Mikovits Story
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.
miknew
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.
5 thoughts on “Another Piece to the Other Side of the Judy Mikovits Story”
I have two comments to your Judy Mikovits follow-on…
1. You can’t underestimate the reach Gates and Fauci (and others) have into the scientific community and how capable they are of getting statements that support their narratives. If you see what’s at stake for Fauci then you know they would not hesitate to use their resources and with Gates behind him with massive investments and media buys, funding of projects, there is practically nothing they don’t have their hands in.
2. The place where we test scientific results is in the publication process. That’s the accepted venue for scientific debate. If results cannot be replicated, then that becomes a part of the debate among scientists – we do not attack scientists for publishing their results or even opinions – we don’t deprive them of their rights – once something goes that far, then proving them right or wrong is not longer on the table. Attacking and destroying any scientist is always a result of their going outside the “narrative” and taking something to that extreme is a crime all by itself – again, whether the scientist is right or wrong, whether they had nefarious intent, or whatever, is no longer arguable – the fact that the attack happened is outside the boundaries of what is appropriate even when the person is a whistleblower – perhaps Trump has had too much influence if we now think this is the new normal.
For hundreds of years scientists have debated theories and made science better. I cannot think of anything gained by cancelling our normal process by throwing a scientist in jail and ruining their career even if wrong.
The argument here is not whether she did something that is false she would most certainly know would come back to her eventually but whether her treatment should ever stand.
you don’t get a pass from criminal activity just because you are a scientist.
Maybe it was the institution trying to crush her, or maybe she did all, most or part of what she was accused of, backed down (i.e., gave all the materials back) and then the authorities decided not to go through the time and expense of an indictment and trial. I don’t know which it was. But either way, since we know the whole episode was a result of lab contamination, who cares because she’s obviously not like Galileo who defended a correct view of the world against the establishment. She is just one of the myriad of scientists who made a splash for something proven to be wrong, like the cold fusion folks. It’s just not worth any more of my time.
Read her books. She already explained this. Why attack Judy? I am no longer wasting my time reading your posts & supporting you. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Dr Judy does. I am not making an emotional decision, I am a med professional. My decision to remove you from my email & posts is easy. Real inquests wouldn’t be argued in public. Shoulda sat down with Judy for a cup of coffee and a notebook. Have a nice life.
Bye, you too
Looks like you’re the one being emotional. I saw nothing in Mr. Jaffe’s writing, but an objective evaluation of the situation as he found it.