Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mikovits & Ruscetti, response to comments on Lombardi et al 2009

• Response to Comments on "Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" (Mikovits & Ruscetti 2010) [1]

• Supporting Material (information on patient samples): [2] (URL in above source anyway)

These new sources should help clear up the confusion.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed tag?

Should the tag go or stay at this point? Ward20 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a quick look at the edit history I think it can probably be taken out now, as most of the controversial edits seem to have levelled out. I've taken it out for the time being..If anyone thinks otherwise, well then re-add it..StevieNic (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

this page is not neutral, there was a dr mikovits page and someone decided to merge it with this page, even though harvey whittemore and dr peterson all have their own wikipedia pages, I suspect the person who merged dr mikovits page had some odd prejudice against dr mikovits, she fulfils all the criteria of being allowed her own page, so why did it get merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.237.226 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

lol thats all I can say....dr mikovits is as "important" as dr peterson and the whittemores and donnica moore and all those have their own pages, anyone that says otherwise is in lala land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.237.144 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

YES I agree dr mikovits is clearly important enough for her own page, denying it from her is just prejudice, all her peers have their own wiki pages, and being lead researcher on a top discovery of 2009 is no small thing, regardless of if it turns out to be replicated or not, the original discovery made waves and made a lot of media coverage, that is enough to warrant her own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with yourself again? If you feel so strongly about it, you need to contact the administrator who closed the discussion and then request an undeletion review, as explained to you here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

what is sciencewatcher on about? does anyone else feel that hes getting a little bit worked up for nothing, dont be a zealot and please stop banding around false accusations, you are coming accross more than a little paranoid, I have seen you have been moderated on other pages so please stop making false accusations at people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE to all editors, the accusation that sciencewatcher just posted is totally unfounded becuase I just looked at the link he posted is referring to a totally different IP address, so sciencewatcher please can you stop throwing around accusations and stick to facts please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

86.150.237.144 and 81.153.143.101 are both from the same ISP (btcentralplus). What are the odds that two different people would be editing the same article from the same ISP with the same editing style at the same time? If you had a username we could do a checkuser, but right now there's not much point because you'll just get a new ip address in a day or two. You're just wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

that is unfounded paranoia and slander, please behave or risk being reported, I have no time for such ramblings, you are the one wasting peoples time with the slander campaign trying to suggest that IP editors are not worthy of being allowed to edit wikipedia, you have been using your influence on these pages for far too long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.101 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

History of the WPI

The following article may be useful for expanding on the history of the WPI and their eventual detection of XMRV in CFS patients.

http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/content/10/3/120.full

_Tekaphor (TALK) 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant to the history of WPI, as told by "W", but it's "W"s word alone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

mikovits needs her own page

I notice donnica moore and others have their own page, therefore it would make sense o give judy mikovits her own page too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.176.242 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

She has to pass the notability test. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Mikovits for previous discussions. If the science supports the WPI et al research, then I suspect that the press coverage, etc., will help cross that threshold. Until then ...

It would also help if you followed WP:TP by signing your posts and adding new sections at the end. TerryE (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

she does pass the notability test, that is plainly obvious, all her peers have their own page, is only a handful of editors who seem unable to see that she blatantly passes notability test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.181 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

XMRV and WPI

Two more papers about XMRV, from researchers associated with the WPI

(1) "Addendum: Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome." (Mikovits et al 2010) http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/40/article/12486

(2) "Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus: current research, disease associations and therapeutic opportunities." (Mikovits & Lombardi & Ruscetti 2010) http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/thy.10.39

I don't know if these pass everyone's interpretation of "MEDRS" but hopefully they will help to further alleviate the ignorance about patient cohorts, methodological differences, and the rumours about "contamination".

Extract from the first paper: "Neither the WPI nor NCI labs where PCR was performed had ever worked with mouse tissues or had been exposed to XMRV from other sources. The env sequences amplified from LNCaP cells infected by patient PBMCs exhibit less similarity to mouse genomic DNA than to XMRV VP62, further indicating the presence of XMRV infection rather than mouse genomic DNA contamination. After we developed a sensitive cell culture assay for detection of XMRV, we assayed our cell lines and patient material with a highly sensitive assay (developed and kindly provided by Bill Switzer, CDC) to detect the presence of mouse tissue contamination by the identification of murine mitochrondial cytochrome oxidase by real time PCR. All of the cell lines and 101 patient materials tested negative for mouse contamination."

_Tekaphor (TALK) 03:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Impact of Alter paper on Contradicting Results section

There's a discussion of the Alter paper at Detection of MLV-related virus gene sequences in blood of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy blood donors at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Study Finds Retroviruses in Chronic Fatigue Sufferers; no need to repeat it here. However, I think that this is a trigger to consider rebalancing the Contradicting results and media coverage section and subsections. Instead of 1 vs. 4 we now have two studies WPI/NCI/CC + NIH giving broadly consistent findings and 4/5 studies failing to find XMRV in the CFS patient populations. Perhaps it is now time to move to a more encyclopaedic coverage of the basic facts and trim out some of the now rather historic tittle-tattle. However given the edit to-and-fro's in the past, I think that we should seek some degree of consensus before making any material changes. -- TerryE (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the tabloid style writing and using the NY Times, Science, Medscape and other high impact sources that have recently neutrally reviewed the history to rewrite the section. Ward20 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Tekaphor for including a summary. I've added some review comments from a recent Science edition. I release that this is putting quite a lot of detail into a slightly off-topic para (on the Lo/Alter paper), but it is clearly a rock solid RS source (MEDRS is not required for this sort of observation) and it helps to place the inconsistency of the various studies in context for readers. I hope it reads well, but would welcome improvement.

Overall this "Contradicting results and media coverage" is a reasonable summary, though the second para of the "Differing opinions on the Science study patient cohort" seems to be over doing this issue. It all boiled down to van Kuppeveld taking a reference by Mikovits to "an Incline patient cohort" as patients only from Incline, rather than patients referred to the Incline centre from over US and Internationally. OK, this misunderstanding triggered a flare of claims and responses, but is it that important an issue with 6 months hindsight? -- TerryE (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely in favour of ditching the tabloid style sensationalizing and bringing the article up to a more academic level.StevieNic (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

also all the rubbish about the VIPdx testing and all the insinuation of "ohh they brought out a test to cash in" needs to be removed, plus all the "he said" "she said" rubbish in the testing section too, it does read like a tabloid sensational bit of gossip mongering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.181 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@IP84, please follow WP:TALK and make life easier for everyone else, thanks. As your point. I only partially agree. It did receive a lot of coverage at the time, so it was a valid issue to mention, but I agree that over time the weight / emphasis needs to be reduced. -- TerryE (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we expect a revival of dubious accusations after the recent announcement of the Inactivation of XMRV in Platelets and Red Blood Cells by the INTERCEPT Blood System? - Tekaphor (TALK) 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

differing opinions on cohort section

this whole section just seems utterly pointless, the only relevent info is the cohort info in the original study and supporting info, this is totally irrelevent for a wiki page, it just adds gossip and intrigue where there isnt any —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.60.185 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. With the new NIH/FDA study, this section just seems like a waste of space (and even before, it was of dubious value). We don't really know why the results differ, and this section doesn't really help understand it at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto..I've just read it again and it seems pointless. In fact I'm going to blank it for the time being, it adds nothing to the page whatsoever...StevieNic (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bartender again

I've removed the reference to Mikowits tending bar. We've gone over this many times. The editor that keeps reinstating this is in a minority of one. I've previously provided provided references which showed that she was both club member and an officer of this yacht club. This phrasing has a specific connotation which is not supported by the facts. If I can use an analogy here: we've referenced a young blogger who is active on this topic in the past. She often uses obscenity in her writing and no doubt as part of her task cleans the odd lab bench, but is it fair to describe young Stacey as a "foul-mouthed lab cleaner"? No, she is a blogger and post-grad studying virology. Can we please keep the WP content encyclopaedic. -- TerryE (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, we quote the reasons for M moving to California as "for personal reasons". This is normally used as a journalist euphemism for getting sacked. The reference states that she moved to get married. A completely different connotation. If we are going to include content, then please don't rephrase to stick the knife in. -- TerryE (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times states that Mikovits was tending bar and that this is how she met the person who introduced her to the Whittemores. This is relevant. If you have evidence that she was not tending bar, paid or not, and was employed as a researcher at the time, you are encouraged to present it.

Mikovits moved to California for personal reasons, i.e., she was not sacked at NCI, she left voluntarily. You are welcome to give the specific reason if you like. It doesn't help the project to imagine insults where none are made or intended. Please recall AGF and don't accuse editors of nefarious actions like sticking knives, etc.

Similarly, it doesn't help the project to try to out me through apophasis, probably for the benefit of others who know this individual's identity, that I am a particular "foul-mouthed lab cleaner" whom you apparently personally despise, or to use Wikipedia to insult individuals who are not part of this conversation. If you are unable or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's rules or to keep the conversation civil on this topic, please consider another venue for your activities. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Personal reasons" has a questionable connotation. Mikovits moved to CA to get married, which is not relevant to a Wikipedia article on WPI. The bartender material in the article (and other writing) is being used to cast doubts on Mikovits qualifications, and "advancing a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source.".

The bartender story is not relevant unless a reliable source states it had some bearing on Mikovits duties at WPI. This has been discussed in the archives here and here and at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard here where Keepcalmandcarryon stated, "But the entire issue is moot, as none of this is in the article." The bartender material has been removed several times as a tabloid style BLP violation yet Keepcalmandcarryon keeps inserting it.

Here and here are sources that describe Mikovits initial meeting with WPI founders that don't mention the bartender statement and this article shouldn't either. I notice that other material has been edited into the article to introduce a biased POV so I intend to work on that also. Ward20 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you and TerryE and IP members of the pro-WPI POV editing crowd are injecting personal feelings into what is really a clear-cut issue. Unless the New York Times is now considered a tabloid, there is no WP:BLP violation here. Mikovits was working in a bar (paid or not) and met the Whittemores this way, as reported by the New York Times. Certainly, your favourite websites don't exactly stack up to this newspaper. If you disagree with the reporting at the NYT, as you clearly do, you and Terry E are encouraged to write the paper and ask that it issue a formal retraction of whatever language you find offensive to Mikovits and the WPI.

Until then, please desist with accusation of POV. It is manifestly apparent that it is you who has an entrenched point of view on the subjects of CFS and WPI. I, in contrast, am editing based on reliable sources, not "aboutmecfs.org". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I think there's much point in trying to discuss this rationally, given that Terry E just tried to out me and he, Ward 20 and others tried to get me blocked in the past out of pure spite, but consider this. When there's verifiable information from a reliable source that is considered at least by some to be relevant to the article, but you disagree with that information or wish to see it somehow modified, why not add to the article rather than deleting? For example, if you have a source, a reliable source, mind you, that gives a different version from the New York Times of Mikovits's introduction to the Whittemores, you could write something like, "The circumstances of Mikovits's introduction to the Whittemores have been presented in several ways. The New York Times etc. ... whilst the ME Forum writes that ... etc." This is how to build an encyclopaedia, not accusing editors of some unspecified POV when they quote from one of the most reliable sources in the world. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, no one called the New York Times a tabloid. There was no accusation of POV against an editor. Please don't accuse other editors of things that aren't true, and don't state things that aren't correct. What is being objected to is writing in the article that attempts to degrade a persons reputation by using selected phrases to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is original research as well as a BLP violation, both against policy. While you may object to a first person interview about the subject from aboutmecfs.org a different first person interview in Molecular Interventions says essentially the same thing. Ward20 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable, then, to add the "Molecular Interventions" account to complement the NYT account.

While we're at it, let's get a few things straight.

1. According to the New York Times Mikovits met the Whittemores and started the hunt for a viral cause of CFS as a result of tending bar in California. I'm sorry you feel that tending bar at a social function is degrading. I don't. I happen to know several skilled scientists who have tended bar in the past and who still do it on occasion, as Mikovits did. Let's not let our social prejudices affect our editing, OK?
2. According to the New York Times, Mikovits left NCI not because of any deficiency on her part, nor because she was sacked, but because she moved to California for personal reasons, i.e., to get married. Neither this nor the account of the introduction to the Whittemores is remotely a BLP violation, nor is it original research.
3. As far as your accusations against me not being accusations because they are rendered in the passive voice, well, that's certainly an interesting defense, but I don't care to argue further on this level. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised and confused that you think I am trying to out you. The blogger that I used in this example is a female and a person that IIRC you introduced into the conversation way-back-when in quoting content from her blog on this talk page. You've also previously corrected my use of the female 3rd person when referring to you and stated that this is incorrected as you are a male, so where does the accusation of outing come into this?

I agree that the fact that Deckoff-Jones who has CFS and takes antiviral medications for this is relevant, but I am not sure that this point belongs in the organisation section. As to the Bartender quote, we've discussed this many times. The context in the NYT quote was unclear. I've previously given web references to show that she was a member and officer of the club in question. As I've said before it is very common for members to tend bar in such clubs. For example, I've done it in my rowing club at college and in an officer's mess, but I wasn't a bartender. I was a rower and an officer in H.M. Armed Forces. To quote it this way presents an isolated phrase in an anecdote totally out of context. It is not encyclopaedic. -- TerryE (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is how they met relevant at all to an article about WPI? She's a key figure working for WPI, and that's really all that needs to be said...this article isn't about her, so her history is truly irrelevant, other than perhaps a phrase about her career path prior to WPI (e.g., "Judy Mikovits, a researcher/virologist/whatever of X years, ..."). Honestly, it's not what she was doing that I object to, simply that there's really no relevance at all to the information being inserted...whether she was digging ditches, tending bar, or introduced by Queen Elizabeth really isn't relevant! Also, if there's any question of a BLP violation, the information is to be removed from the page until the dispute is unquestionably resolved, thus it's entirely inappropriate for that material to be restored repeatedly by the same editor, as the question has not as yet been resolved. If in doubt, take it to the BLP Noticeboard. Finally, please stop slinging accusations about surrounding the biases of the editors. Remember, it's the edit, not the editor. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

TerryE, there is no reason to drag third parties into this, even if you think they're involved here. There's also no reason to make inaccurate statements about third parties, as you did on my talk page. I don't understand why you would bring this personal problem into an unrelated discussion, unless to insinuate that this person is involved. Clearly, this person's writings conflict with your agenda; either leave that conflict and your agenda at the log-in page, or find a different venue.

How WPI came to be, and how they found and hired their lead investigator, is quite relevant, not to mention interesting and very unusual. If the New York Times found it important, we should, too. We don't perform original research on the web to show that the New York Times is wrong. Neither the New York Times nor our article calls Mikovits a bartender by trade, nor does anyone present this information out of context. She was tending bar after her company in California went under, and as a result met the person who introduced her to the Whittemores. These are the facts, verified by one of the most reliable sources available.

Now, it's clear that individuals with an agenda might like to suppress this information, perhaps because they feel bartending is below the social class to which they believe they belong, or perhaps because this type of introduction, as opposed to a formal search for a currently active scientist, somehow reflects poorly on WPI. The problem is that we shouldn't make edits based upon what we believe or feel. That's agenda editing, and it's inconsistent with the goals of this project. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, KCACO, edits, not editors! – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more constructive to focus on my arguments rather than, ironically, on this editor. Again, How WPI came to be, and how they found and hired their lead investigator, is quite relevant, not to mention interesting and very unusual. If the New York Times found it important, we should, too. We don't perform original research on the web to show that the New York Times is wrong. Neither the New York Times nor our article calls Mikovits a bartender by trade, nor does anyone present this information out of context. She was tending bar after her company in California went under, and as a result met the person who introduced her to the Whittemores. These are the facts, verified by one of the most reliable sources available. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

People often get job contacts though mutual friends, nothing unusual about that. The NYT simply mentions her tending bar in passing and doesn't state it's particularly noteworthy. It has no significance in an encyclopedic article about the WPI and contradicting results and controversy. Just because the Times mentions something doesn't mean it must be included. For example, the article doesn't use the Times description of Mikovits as a "virus expert".[3] Ward20 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

People don't often become the head researcher for a scientific organisation as the result of an introduction made after they lost a job and were working in a bar. If they do, it's kind of noteworthy; clearly, the New York Times thought so. On the one hand, our CFS editors claim this is a serious BLP concern, an insult to Mikovits and WPI and evidence of POV on my part. And in the next breath, it's a piece of trivia, something totally pedestrian that everyone does, too minor for inclusion. The fact that this single sentence so exercises certain editors is evidence that each of us considers this issue to be of some importance.

As for the "virus expert" comment, our article describes, with multiple sources, Mikovits's educational and professional background and her research experience with several retroviruses. And if I recall correctly, although I have been known to forget a thing or two, I added this information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, please don't categorize editors with wording such as "our CFS editors". As far as the other, it is a BLP concern when a piece of trivia is taken out of context and out of the proper timeline of the source to describe a person. We have beaten this horse to death. Ward20 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the horse, but there is nothing here that is taken out of context. Mikovits was jobless, she was working in a bar, and that is how she was first introduced to the Whittemores. She then physically met AW at the HHV meeting. The New York Times account is perfectly consistent with the account of AW. It's clear that you, TerryE and others have a reason for wanting to delete this verifiable, well-sourced information, and that reason is not a BLP concern. There are no restrictions on my pointing that out. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) @K, you have made many changes to the content of both the XMRV and WPI articles in the last couple of weeks. IMHO, the majority of these bring the articles up to date with current research findings, and I support this new content. Yes, I have challenged a couple edits where the (MED)RS did not actually support the proposed content, and this bar tending issue.

We have referenced many RS in these articles and some contain glowing accolades of JM that we haven't included because no editors feel that they are appropriate for a WP article. I feel that we shouldn't confuse necessity and sufficiency. Content, especially controversial content, must be supported by appropriate RS, but just because there is a sentence in an RS isn't in itself sufficient, and this doesn't mean that one editor can ignore repeated reverts by half a dozen other editors and their consensus to reinstate this content, what must be 9 times now? The wording could have a number of interpretations. Your summary "Mikovits was jobless, she was working in a bar, and that is how she was first introduced to the Whittemores." is one, but there are others. The references that I supplied 6 months ago support the interpretation that she happened to be an officer of the yacht club. Yes, my weblinks weren't RS, but I wasn't proposing this as article content; I was simply pointing out that there is doubt over the interpretation that you champion seek to include as content. Given this, and the common view that this anecdote has no relevance to the history of WPI, then it doesn't belong in this article. So yes, I do have a reason but this is entirely within WP P&G. Can you please accept this consensus, without accusing other editors of being POV, pro-WPI and SPA? -- TerryE (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Engaging in original research, using unreliable sources, to dispute content from the New York Times does not mean that interpretations are necessary. Mikovits had lost her job and was working in the yacht club, tending bar. Perhaps she was paid, perhaps not; it doesn't matter. If you have reliable sources that state Mikovits was employed as a scientist at the time, or not tending bar when she met the Whittemore friend, you are encouraged to present them. You have not and cannot, because no currently available reliable source states that Mikovits was working as a scientist when hired by WPI. Whether Mikovits was an officer or an employee or the founder of the yacht club is of no bearing on what the NYT states, and what my version conveyed in an accurate manner.

I do not accuse you or anyone else of being a SPA; rather, I point out that you are a SPA, which is indisputable. You have one clear interest on Wikipedia, and that is to promote your views on CFS. If anyone gets in your way, you will do everything in your power not only to stop them, but to remove them from the project entirely, as you tried to do with me. The reason I bring this up is not to insult you or to be incivil, but because it is telling that the only editors who object to the content from the NYT are editors who, from their editing history, have a clear interest, like WPI, in promoting the idea of an infectious cause of CFS. Bowing to the "consensus" of agenda-driven editors is not in keeping with the goals of the project. Per WP:VOTE, I reject the notion that such POV editors can automatically outvote information sourced to the New York Times.

If you truly think it of no relevance whatsoever that the head researcher of the world's foremost organisation advancing the idea of a specific infectious cause of CFS was, as noted by the New York Times, out of work and tending bar before being hired into the position, you must at least acknowledge that if the same were true of Simon Wessely, some editors would be taking a very different position. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some editors might, but the rest of us would revert that just as much as we have reverted it here (as I did here, for example). It's simply irrelevant. And yet again, you're assuming motivations not in evidence. Even if TerryE is an SPA (I haven't looked at his history, because it's irrelevant), you assume that he has an agenda, which I've seen little sign of. Viewpoints, yes; standards, yes; but in the end, that's all they are. I can only think of two or three editors who have ever given me the impression that they're here to advance an agenda. You, on the other hand, seem to be putting forth that everybody who disagrees with your statements about CFS or anything related to it is here to advance an agenda, and that's simply not the case. I don't have an agenda, Terry doesn't have an agenda, Sciencewatcher doesn't have an agenda...we're all just people coming at the same topic from different points of view, and on this particular topic, I don't believe anybody else has said they agree with you that this is an important piece of information. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"I do not accuse you or anyone else of being a SPA; rather, I point out that you are a SPA, which is indisputable."

This is silly and self-contradictory. Of course you repeatedly claim that I am / accuse me of being an SPA. The majority of my article edits have been off CFS, so I think that this is grounds to dispute this.

"You have one clear interest on Wikipedia, and that is to promote your views on CFS. If anyone gets in your way, you will do everything in your power not only to stop them"

I don't have strong fixed views on CFS, though I do acknowledge that I believe that biological mechanisms are an underlying causal factor of CFS, but I have also supported the involvement of psychosomatic factors. In my dialogue with other editors and their edits, I have as often taken the opposite position to what you suggest as my "strong fixed views", because I believe that it is the published science that matters. So again claiming that I promote "an infectious cause of CFS" isn't supported by the evidence.

IIRC, little of my edit conflict with you relates to actual scientific or medical content which is well supported by (MED)RS, but with more with your morphing of reference material to attack living people. For example the other edit here was based an RS about Deckoff-Jones which said "who has chronic fatigue syndrome and has taken anti-retroviral drugs for a year", yet which became in your content "who has CFS and prescribes antiviral medications for herself" [my ital]. IMHO, accusing a Doctor of self-medication by referencing a source which doesn't is typical of content which needs to be robustly challenged. As for JM, you have converted a passing anecdote in the NYT to she was "out of work and tending bar before being hired into the position" (where again this usage of "tending bar" implies fulltime working). Surely if it was that important and newsworthy then at least one other source or even the NYT itself would have explored this further? No, the other editors disagree with you on this one and will continue to revert you. -- TerryE (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My statement about Deckoff-Jones, three words amidst a large amount of verifiable information I have added to this and other articles, most of them completely unrelated to CFS, in recent weeks, was based on an unfortunate conflation of an unreliable source I had read with the Chicago Tribune story. It was an honest mistake, but you have refused to AGF and have used it as "evidence" of my supposed conniving in order to "attack living people". By the way, self-prescribing is not as uncommon as you might think, and although it is in general considered unethical to prescribe for oneself and relatives, there are certain exceptions. A doctor who considers CFS to be a fatal illness, caused by a specific infectious agent, but who cannot find another doctor to prescribe the medications he/she thinks are necessary, could perhaps, according to some, constitute one of those exceptions. In any case, if there is an ethical difference between prescribing for myself in such a case and seeking out a sympathetic doctor, the former would seem to me the best choice as any fallout would be on me not others. All of this is irrelevant, though, as I corrected the statement when my error was pointed out. You, in contrast, deleted both the verifiable and the unreliable information.

If the new criteria for inclusion in this article is extensive coverage in more than one source at the level of the NYT, then we will have to remove large portions of the article. I cordially invite the editors here who are adept at deletion if not contribution to join me in this endeavour Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some additional references for Mikovits's pre-hiring activities, not that the New York Times is at all unclear. I don't propose that we add these to the article, but they're certainly of the calibre used by others to "disprove" the NYT on this talk page.

• aboutmecfs.org: "Our Roll of Honour for 2009" Dec 13, 2009 ... Dr Judy Mikovits for being the most fabulous bartender/virologist we could ever have known.
• forums.phoenixrising.me: Mikovits left her job as a bartender and move out in the mountains to search for a retrovirus
• cfs-facts.blogspot.com: Mikovits just happened to be tending bar while looking for another science job

Of course, as TerryE will no doubt confirm, I'm sure there's a completely different interpretation of the NYT passage and these quotes. Say, that Mikovits was the head of three international pharmaceutical firms at the time and was simply pouring herself a glass of Thiénot on the deck of her luxury yacht. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And where did these bloggers and forum posters get their information? Probably the NYT. Therefore they're adding their own interpretations to the information. Regardless of what interpretation you want to take, you're the only person inserting this information and several people have tried to explain to you why it's irrelevant. Please stop inserting it unless and until you can build a consensus. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Someone parroting your WP content or the NYT anecdote is hardly RS. -- TerryE (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The source provided does not state, imply, or otherwise indicate that "the professional status of a key employee" has any significance to the controversy or conflicting results that came after the article was published. To imply to the reader otherwise, as is presently done in the article, is original research since the source predated any negative studies. In fact, not one source in the background section states any of the included material has anything to do with contradicting results and controversy. Ward20 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks as if this will have to go to dispute resolution. Ward20 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If any of our pro-WPI editing crowd have problems with the New York Times coverage, please take it up with the New York Times. Ask them to publish a retraction. Until such time as the New York Times issues this retraction, it is verifiable that the lead investigator of WPI was unemployed prior to hiring and was introduced to the Whittemores by a contact she made while tending bar. There is no original research here, only agenda-driven deletion of verifiable information by individuals with patent conflicts of interest (patients/patient advocates) that is inconsistent with the goals of the encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First, we're not all pro-WPI—I've stated in a few places that I suspect that they're simply wrong about XMRV and I have no particular liking or disliking for them as an institution. Second, as I've stated on numerous occasions, I don't see this information as important...it has nothing to do with accuracy, which I have no reason to doubt, it has to do with relevance. How is Judy Mikovits tending bar in any way relevant to the "Contradicting results and controversy"? Yet again, I'll ask you to stop painting editors with motivations you have no indication for! – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself pro-WPI or not; if you're opposing the inclusion of reliably sourced information with no consistent reason (see below), you've got an agenda that doesn't square with encyclopaedia writing. I sympathise with the plight of patients and their need to believe in a particular cause of their illness, whether that's XMRV or anything else, but this cannot trump reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, if I'm opposing the inclusion of reliably-sourced information, it means I'm opposing the inclusion of reliably-sourced information on grounds other than the fact that it's reliably-sourced. Again and again and again, I've asked you to kindly stop assuming motivation. If you don't stop, I'll have to take it to more official channels. Comment on the edit, not on your beliefs about the motivation behind it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Keepcalmandcarryon. No, the policies of Wikipedia are followed, not the policies of an editor that dismisses other editors based on an interpretation of motives. But I have other things in real life that must be adressed now. Ward20 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

New section

We have now had at least three objections to the disputed, New York Times-sourced content:

1. Pointing out that Mikovits was unemployed and tending bar is a BLP violation, even though it is impeccably sourced, because it portrays Mikovits and WPI in a bad light
2. Pointing out that Mikovits was unemployed and tending bar is trivia, since tending bar is something everyone does and everyone makes professional contacts in social settings
3. Although perhaps relevant and adequately sourced, pointing out that Mikovits was unemployed and tending bar has nothing to do with an article section on controversy and conflicting results

Clearly, these objections are mutually contradictory. To answer the objections together:

1. Reliably sourced content is not a BLP violation
2. The pre-hiring status of the article's subject's lead investigator is relevant
3. This information is appropriately placed in a sub-section entitled "Background" Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in your qualifier "at least". This one has been bouncing in an out for 7 months 15 months. I think that the correct way to resolve this is through dispute resolution, but given that this content relates to BLP, then the correct default through this process is to leave the content out until we have resolution. -- TerryE (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should go to dispute resolution. In regards to #2, please explain how the pre-hiring status of the lead investigator is relevant. Professional background, maybe, but unrelated activities...how? In regards to #3, a "Background" section under "Conflicting results and controversy" should give background on the results and controversy, not some random factoid on the lead investigator. That's simply not relevant to either the results or the controversy. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, violates BLP? Was Mikovits employed at the time? Was she not tending bar? Is the New York Times unreliable? The only moves you have are to attack me, file sockpuppet investigations, and set up straw men. For example, by stating that Mikovits is not a professional bartender (she's not, and no one is saying she is/was). There is no BLP issue here, only a desire to suppress reliably sourced information.

The fact that a lead investigator was hired while unemployed and tending bar (paid or not, TerryE, no one is claiming anything either way) is obviously relevant as evidenced by the coverage. And that's exactly why some editors are attempting to suppress this information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. Can you spot the difference?

1. John McCain, Senator from Arizona, announced his candidacy....
2. John McCain, a former politician who at the time was unemployed and working as a bartender, announced his candidacy...

Would it be of no relevance to the article on John McCain or the 2008 US election if the New York Times reported version #2 instead of version #1? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of a single top-level biomedical researcher who is unemployed for any amount of time, unless they lost all of their grants or were laid off from Big Pharma. Or something else. It's kind of sad that whitewashing is a goal here. I know why the pro-WPI people want it removed, since it shows that Mikovits probably doesn't have much credibility in the biomedical research world, but we should let the reader make that determination. The facts are that she was a bartender and unemployed. It is supported by a reliable source. So unless there's a contravening reliable source that says something otherwise, why is anyone wanting the whitewash? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, KCACO has made my point for me, and perhaps this will answer your question as well, OM. In the John McCain article, it goes into extensive details about his career and personal life, both in politics and prior to entering politics. Had he been a bartender, I would see it as absolutely appropriate for such an article. In the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, it mentions only the important part of that, making a passing reference to him being well-known for his military service. Finally, in United States presidential election, 2008, there is no mention of his military career at all (nor of anything not related to his political views/history, at least not that I saw), only that he is a Senator for Arizona. In neither of the latter two articles would I see any mention of a brief stint as a bartender being relevant in any way at all, particularly if the length of time were unknown.

By the same token, if the article were about Judy Mikovits and went into her history in detail, I would be arguing the reverse, that it should be included...at least in a detailed career history. Now, given that Judy Mikovits doesn't qualify for her own article (or at least didn't...I'd have to re-read the guidelines to see if that's still the case), a little leeway could be in order here, and if the article develops a biographies section or something similar, I would bow out of the discussion entirely. As it is, though, we're talking about the conflicting results and controversy, not the biographies of those involved, so I see it as entirely irrelevant, just as John McCain's military history was irrelevant to the article on the 2008 election.

Long story short, I can't speak for other editors, but I, at least, am not trying to whitewash this in any way. I just don't see the relevance of that particular fact in that particular section.

Edit: One last thing, I believe I may have reverted an edit on BLP grounds at some point. Having re-read the BLP guidelines, I believe that removing the information on the grounds that BLP said to revert was erroneous, as the information is published in a reliable source, not poorly sourced or unsourced. That doesn't negate the relevance issue, however, which has been my primary concern with this particular piece of information. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop edit warring until we get this dispute resolved? Some thoughts...first, if we do keep the bartender stuff we can perhaps move it into another location in the article (maybe the Organization section). Second, the bartender/unemployed seems relevant and important because WPI is widely seen as amateurish and a lot of their actions have been very unprofessional, so the unemployed/bartender fits in with this and perhaps explains things for the reader. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This (9th?) version of content based on this RS for the first time accurately reflects the RS so whilst I would prefer to omit it I support your recommendation that we let it lie until this is resolved. But the debate isn't resolved, and I have yet to see a MEDRS or any RS refer to WPI as amateurish, though I would support the view that their work is now highly controversial. However, this discussion is about content. let me just contrast the RS and the interpretation that OM is placing on it: Grady:"she went to work for a drug development company that failed. She was tending bar at a yacht club when a patron said her constant talk about viruses reminded him of someone he knew in Nevada." OM:"I don't know of a single top-level biomedical researcher who is unemployed for any amount of time ... it shows that Mikovits probably doesn't have much credibility in the biomedical research world ... The facts are that she was a bartender and unemployed".

No, the facts from this RS are that (i) she went to work for a drug company that failed. But how is this a reflection on her professional abilities, as OM suggests? (ii) she was tending a bar ... There is an inference by the juxtaposition of these sentence that they are time ordered, but this is an inference left to the reader. She might have been unemployed for months, years or not at all; we don't know the facts here, and the NYT isn't clear on this point. "Tending a bar" has a range of connotations and OM's usage is perhaps one of the more negative. However, as I have previously discussed on these talk pages, a simple web search revealed that at the time Mikovits was a Junior Staff Commodore at the Pierpont Bay Yacht Club, that is a member and elected official. Now I agree that yacht club minutes aren't RS and that this could be viewed as OR, but I am not proposing this as WP article content. However member-run bars are common in these clubs, so this is a reasonable interpretation of the actual NYT wording. So whilst the current wording is at least an accurate reflection of the RS, I still question the relevance. It also seems to me that when an experience editor like OM can come up with 2+2=5 and dismiss a polite and well reasoned argument as "whitewash", then I also question the safety of its inclusion. -- TerryE (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To place the clear language from the New York Times in doubt, all that is needed is a reliable source stating that the company Mikovits worked for did not fail, that she was employed as a scientist at the time and that she did not meet the friend of the Whittemores while tending bar. We don't yet have such a source, only TerryE's objections, based on interpretations of original research, to other editor's talk page comments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my last post, it is quite clear that I am not questioning the facts as presented in the NYT, just some of your more colourful interpretations, and their relevance to this article. -- TerryE (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we are saying it is relevant because a lot of things that WPI have done have been seen as unprofessional and it is quite unusual to get hired to run something like WPI from a meeting in a bar - hence the relevance for the article. I don't think it's in dispute that WPI and their founders have said and done a lot of controversial/unprofessional things - they're all mentioned in the article already with reliable sources. That is why the bartender thing is relevant. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well stated; I agree. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin stop making changes to factual information

I have now added several pieces of factual information to the page only to have it removed by those who are not taking the time to read it. Judy Mikovit's job has changed, Erwlien et al did not used the same conditions as Lombardi et al, and Lo et al was not a negative study as XMRV is a hybrid. Get your facts straight and stop pushing personal opinions.Byanose (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are now involved in an edit warByanose (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, see WP:Consensus and WP:3RR - do not revert. A lack of reversion is no endorsement of the current version.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The referenced Erwin study did not claim to use the "original reaction conditions". However, they did redo their PCR for this paper using the original primer sets, plus additional serological tests which were different to the Lombardi study. So the original text "A study using the original reaction conditions" is not supported by the referenced MEDRS, so I feel that editors were incorrect in reverting to non-MEDRS text. Can I suggest "A study using the original primer sets" maintains the main point of the negative finding without abusing the MEDRS content. -- TerryE (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any good reason why AR or OM would want to revert a perfectly accurate organisational change supported by an RS. It's normal practice to read the text that you have decided to revert, but really up to the editors concerned to explain their reasoning here. -- TerryE (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still amused that Byanose would template a regular and an admin at that. The only people whining about the test are, wait for it................the WPI! That doesn't even meet the standards of the National Enquirer, let alone an encyclopedia. Well, I'm just waiting for Byanose to try the 3RR again. Because, you see, gaming the system by waiting the necessary time to get around the 3RR...well, that doesn't work so well. Bring a real reliable source, something that just knocks my socks off, and I promise not to revert. And a reliable source had better be in a peer reviewed journal, or at least a commentary in the peer reviewed journal. In the meantime...I'm going to go read real research about something more important. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Byanose was unwise to use a template, especially one that is inaccurately applied. WP:DTTR is sound advice.

However, this is a distraction from my point that you did not discuss:

• The content that you reverted to does not reflect the quoted MEDRS.

Byanose templating is irrelevant here; ditto action of 3rd parties; ditto asking for other MEDRS. What I was hoping for a simple explanation of why you think that the content wording that your reverted to is supported by the MEDRs as given. -- TerryE (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you all mean as templating. But here is an explanatoin for why the quotes for Erlwein et al is incorrect. Lombardi et al results of 67% were based on Nested RT-PCR, primers for gag were GAG-O-F/GAG-O-R and GAG-I-F/GAG-I-R, 35 cycles for both, and annealing temperature was 52C and 54C. Erlwein 2011 used PCR, primers for gag were 419F/1154R, primers for env were 5922F/6273R. The PCR for env and gag was only on 11 samples and done by the Cleveland clinic and are not the results of the study, only supporting evidence for an association.

Mikovits is also not the Director of Research, which Arthur Rubin also changed. I will post on Lo et al in the above section and correct there.One000 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)One000 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One000, If you want to learn what templating means, the follow the link OM provided ( WP:DTTR). If you are the same user as Byanose then please read WP:SOCK. Please do not mass revert on contentious issues. It is good that you've discussed some of your reasoning, but some of the edits in this bulk change are not addressed by the above comments. I would prefer a response from OM on the above point and not another revert ping-pong. -- TerryE (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not the same user. More than one person can actually look at the data. If you look the other issue is addressed below. I presume you agree?One000 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above is a criticism of the accuracy of a MEDRS. Whilst this may of may not be correct, under WP rules this counts as WP:OR and is not allowed. The presumption is that the reviews or a MEDRS have done their jobs. However, this paper is what the WP WP:MEDRS guideline defines as a primary source in medicine, so I suggest that you look at this. My point is that the current content "A study using the original reaction conditions" lies outside MEDRS guidelines, and I interested to know the reasoning behind two experienced editors reverting to this non-MEDRS content. If we include content based on the RS then we should stick to MEDRS. -- TerryE (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikovits not having the title of Resarch Director has nothing to do with WPWP:MEDRS So how do you intend to keep the page honest if you are relying on sources shown to be totally incorrect?One000 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)One000 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"The XMRV specific assay uses the primers GAG-O-F and GAG-O-R and GAG-I-F and GAG-I-R for the primary and nested PCRs, respectively, and conditions as previously described [11,12]. This is the same nested PCR test used by Urisman et al. and Lombardi et al. to detect 413-bp XMRV gag sequences in prostate cancer and CFS patients, respectively [11,12]." from switzer et al 2010. The references for 11 and 12 are Lombardi et al and Urisman et al. Obvously Lombardi et al do then explain the modifications to the RT-PCR in their supporting materialOne000 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)One000 (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no reason to not correctly state what Mikvotis's job is. Secondly, as the secondary source shows the primers were not those used by Erlwein et al, as Lombardi et al's results were based on RT-PCR, and as Lombardi et al states, they modified the conditions for that RT-PCR from Urisman et al. Which is still appropriate under WP:MEDRS.One000 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's actually not our role as Wikipedia editors to do sequence analyses and comparisons of PCR conditions across papers. We let the literature do that for us, so if authors state that they've used another group's conditions, we could potentially report that. If another paper is then written stating that they didn't really use the other group's conditions, we could potentially also report that. What we don't do is perform original research. If you're convinced that there's a cover-up and you would like to correct what you see as errors, the best thing to do is to contribute to the scientific literature. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Switzer et al shows the current information on the page to be wrong. There is no need for sequence analysis. Both Erlwein 2010 and 2011, and Switzer, say different primers were used, they contradict each other. Why not say that? What does that have to do with a cover up.One000 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I sense that you haven't consulted WP:OR. Find us a sentence in a MEDRS-compliant source that says, "Erlwein, et al. claimed to have replicated WPI's original conditions, but they did not." That's what you need. Unless you have that source, you will probably find another website, such as the PLoS One site, a better venue than Wikipedia for the sort of debate you appear to want. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Three points in response, two to OneOOO and one for K:

• MEDRS is a specific interpretation of WP:RS that is applied in the case of the medical and health-related content in any type of article. So yes, it does apply to interpretations on the Erlwein and Lo papers, but not to Mikovits' new appointment.
• If K and I are making the same point about your interpretation of the content of the Erlwein paper then you can extrapolate and safely assume that you will find little or no editor support on this line of argument. You will also find little toleration of unsubstantiated claims of cover-up. Stick to your critique of current article content related to the quoted RS or as K suggests find suitably weighty MEDRS to add additional interpretation.
• K, as the the originator of the phrase "A study using the original reaction conditions", I am interested why you think that the RS claims this when I can find not evidence in the paper. -- TerryE (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry, what do you propose? Is there a mid-point that works for both your "side" (sorry, I have no other word that I can use) and our "side"? You seem reasonable. Keep is reasonable. I can be reasonable when I'm not dealing with SPA sockpuppets.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From the abstract: When later reports failed to confirm the link to CFS, they were often criticised for not using the conditions described in the original study. Here, we revisit our patient cohort to investigate the XMRV status in those patients by means of the original PCR protocol which linked the virus to CFS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely if we stick to the abstract wording that K quotes, then we both address any MEDRS concerns and also make the article more understandable to the lay readership: "Another study used the original PCR protocol on its own cohort of UK patients but found no evidence for an association of XMRV with CFS " (This is the first reference to PCR hence the wikilink). -- TerryE (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The only difference is the tired introduction of the "UK patients", who after all, according to some, are different patients, not real CFS patients, not sick enough, or whatever it is. There are people who will never be satisfied by any replication study that's not performed by Judy Mikovits herself. That doesn't mean we have to decorate every statement in the article with caveats. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I only picked up the "UK" caveat from the abstract itself, so I am not sure why this is tired. However, we could easily drop the "of UK" and use "patient cohort", but as to "reaction conditions" vs. "PCR protocol"; this is a rewording which loses the general reader and deviates from the paper's wording for no clear advantage. -- TerryE (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lo et al was not a negative study and did support the findings of Lombardi et al

"One study found no XMRV but did report evidence of murine retroviral sequences in the blood of some CFS patients.[55]" This line is wrong also. What should be added in a new section is the following, which should speak for itself. One000 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"An independent replication study was published in the prestigious journal, PNAS in September of 2010 by award winning scientists, Dr. Harvey Alter and Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo of the NIH and FDA. This study confirmed the association of MLV-related human retroviruses in doctor diagnosed CFS patients. The sequences initially reported in the Lombardi et al were polytropic/xenotropic hybrid mlv related while the sequences reported by Lo/Atler were polytropic or modified polytropic MLV related These researchers found 87% percent of patient samples from 1992 were positive for polytopic gag and env sequences versus 6.8% of the control samples. In addition, some of the CFS patients were retested and found to be positive for this retroviral infection after fifteen years."One000 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again the issue of one of WP:WEIGHT and other NPOV considerations. The Lo paper is a single primary MEDRS, so the first Q is "Is this relevant to the WPI article?" and second if so, then what is the appropriate emphasis. Your currently proposed change reads more like a press release than encyclopaedic content. So my recommendation if you want this proposed content to be supported editors is to remove all of the laudatory boiler plate and use the tests (i) is this content entirely relevant to the articles, and (ii) is it conformant to the MEDRS guidelines. -- TerryE (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"XMRV genomes (1, 2) are actually hybrids between polytropic endogenous MLV sequences for their 5′ half up to approximately the middle of pol and xenotropic MLV for their 3′ half that harbors env." One000 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The current language is accurate. WPI reported an association of a specific virus, not a broad family of viruses, with CFS. The Lo, et al. study was negative for XMRV and as such, like every other XMRV/CFS study, did not confirm the WPI results. Because of this, the recent contamination publications and the current lack of evidence that the "MLV-related" retroviruses (which are actually just MLV variants) are human pathogens, I do not support a change to the existing version. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true now is it. Lo et al found polytropic sequences. XMRV is as quoted a hybrid. What do indirect contamination papers have to do with what was found in Lo et al?One000 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)One000 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please see original research. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote is not from original research.One000 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1007944107.full.pdf+html One000 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One000, Please read the section of MEDRS on use of primary sources that I referred you to. You need to stick largely to abstract content and only if relevant to this article. OK, this article is about WPI and is therefore not strictly a MEDRS article, but nonetheless MEDRS still applies to any medical claims. You need to find alternative referencable comments which relate to the controversy over the results or negative results, for example the quote from Racaniello in the NYT [4] on the issue of contamination finding invalidating the Lombardi and Lo papers: "the new studies show that identification of XMRV can be fraught with contamination problems, but they do not imply that previously published studies are compromised. If I had difficulties interpreting these papers, how would nonscientists fare?” -- TerryE (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Would a quote in a newspaper be acceptable then? What about blogs? The quote on XMRV being a hybrid is not from a primary source. But I realise it only supports my argument.One000 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)One000 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For MEDRS information no. Again read the RS/MEDRS and their talk pages re blogs and online-only newspaper content: they can be allowable in certain circumstances when the author is a clearly established field expert. So using this example Prof R also maintains a blog and participates in a number of podcasts. However, these all fall under what WP also classifies as self-published sources and the problem with these is that even experts might be a little casual with their remarks. Hence the sound advice: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. The fact that the NYT quotes Prof R on this passes this test. Hence this content would be allowable as long as it is phrased. "The virologist Vincent Racaniello warned that ..." or something similar and references the NYT article. WP as a matter of policy does not regard any of its editors as expert, so what we think should not influence content wording that in any way varies the intent of the RS. Prof R is an eminent virologist so his comments on this do have weight. -- TerryE (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Incidentally Prof R also published a seminal paper in Science in 1981 where he described how he used recombinant DNA technology to clone and sequence the poliovirus, then generated the first infectious clone of an animal RNA virus. Over the next four years, various independent labs failed to replicate his work and his integrity was questioned in very much the same way that the current failures to replicate the Lombardi findings have generated hostile criticism of Mikowits et al. However, history and further research proven him correct, and the others wrong. I don't know if the same will happen with this WPI paper, though I feel that it is starting to seem unlikely. But what I, as an editor, think here is irrelevant: we should build article content on the basis of the RS using the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines and without "enhancing" this content or adding our own OR. -- TerryE (talk)

Discussion of this reversion

The source states:

"The challenge for scientists in this field, as in any other that involves patients, is to understand and be motivated by the plight of the patient community without letting their research be swayed by it.

Mikovits has worked with her critics to identify and pursue the research needed to resolve the debate. She is right to engage in debate about her science and defend it where necessary. But Mikovits and her critics need to maintain an open mind."

The source states Mikovits collaborated with critics to try to resolve their differences so why was that material removed? "Her critics" has a specific meaning which is not "others". "Her critics" should be used. The "plight of the patient community" is not an equal term to patients nor is it necessarily their beliefs. Ward20 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ward on this one. The wording he put in place was much more reflective of the source; the previous wording lent a slightly different cast than what the source actually stated. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The "beliefs" should perhaps be "beliefs and desires" based upon the language in the two Nature sources. The implication is very clear, and it's consistent with what scientists have been saying in private, namely that results from an Institute set up specifically to confirm the disease aetiology preconceptions of the founders and many patients must be approached critically. Beyond that, I think my problems with Ward20's writing and original research philosophies is that they remind me of some of my students who feel that copying verbatim from a source, then opening the thesaurus and changing a few words in the text, is good writing. It's not necessarily deprecated, but I think we can do better. If we're going to copy the source so directly, why not just quote it? But if we're going to make Wikipedia a collection of quotes, what's the point of the project? Finally, if we wish to paraphrase ever so slightly, let's at least keep it accurate; see "research" and "analysis". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "implications ... scientists ... saying private". This is an opinion, and whether some scientists might or might not be doing this is irrelevant under WP P&G. Re copying verbatim from RS vs doing better, the WP policy (see WP:PSTS) is quite clear: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." [All true but this is a secondary source] (see WP:NOR) "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Yes, I agree that originality should be encouraged in students; however WP forbids it in respect of editors creating content. -- TerryE (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My comments on the talk page are not meant to be inserted into the article. I do not at all propose that we add the private comments of scientists as sources.

As for originality, I'm not proposing that we engage in creative writing here. But using the same sentence structure and mostly the same words as every source is questionable, in my view, especially when the few synonyms we use to replace original words are sometimes inappropriate. E.g., allowing patients to guide one's analysis (Ward20) is a much narrower matter than allowing patients to guide one's research (Nature).

Let's review what we know from the reliable sources. WPI was set up by parents of a patient and a CFS doctor, all of whom believe that CFS is caused by a virus (Whittemores) or some infectious agent (Peterson). The conviction that CFS is caused by a virus and thus has no psychiatric involvement is the position of many patients, or at least the majority of vocal and activism-minded patients as characterised by the sources. Judy Mikovits was hired to find that virus. Her research, what is known in science as a "fishing expedition", was unsuccessful for several years. She obtained two positive results in a screen for XMRV. She then, as reported by Nature, successively altered the experimental conditions until she obtained a positive signal for all samples. (As an aside, this is very unusual, and it's telling that Nature reported this; it would normally be done only in the case of known positive samples. It appears that someone must have believed the samples were positive.) As a result of Mikovits's report, the CFS patient community lionised Mikovits and WPI, who, as the Chicago Tribune reported, began to make "increasingly broad" statements about their findings and the implications of them: XMRV is found in 85% or 90% or 95% of patient samples, it is the likely cause of CFS symptoms, it may be treated by antiretroviral drugs, it is a likely cause of MS, autism, FM, and other diseases and so on. Annette Whittemore even wrote that Mikovits's report proves that CBT and GET are useless, a commonly held patient belief that like virus causation is not yet supported by the medical literature.

Nature (and others we don't quote here) have criticised Mikovits and WPI for allowing patients, i.e., the common beliefs in specific virus causation, absence of psychiatric disorders, inefficacy of CBT and GET, etc., to drive their research. Everyone who follows this story knows that everything written above is verifiable, so I don't understand why stating this is controversial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"The conviction that CFS is caused by a virus and thus has no psychiatric involvement is the position of many patients". This is the inference that entirely escapes me. Why on earth does the (possible) implication that a virus is involved in an illness rule out a key role of pyschosomatic management? This is just silly. Do a google or pubmed search on CBT and cancer if you don't believe me. Or are you going to conclude that because I think that pyschosomatic management also has a role to play in cancer treatment that I believe that cancer is not of biological origin. Sighhhh.

As to the fact that the institute was set up by ... So what? We clearly document that. Would it have more respectable if set up by the Gates foundation, say? There's no chance of it being set up by the NIH, when its funding of hay fever research is greater than that on CFS, and only a tiny percentage of the CFS funding goes on research into biological aspects.

As to your criticism of Mikovits research, I have one response: Nature and her collaborators. This paper was in peer review cycle for six months before being accepted. It had the support of Silverman and Ruscetti. Are you saying that these reviewers and collaborators were dupes and incompetents? Yes, the work may fall by the wayside as unverifiable and flawed, but let the system show that. -- TerryE (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing my comments, it does not seem I said any of what TerryE attributes to me. It was not I, but Annette Whittemore (and many patients, as shown by both reliable and unreliable sources) who think that a viral cause precludes psychiatric involvement and "proves" that CBT and GET are useless. Similarly, I did not say that anyone was a dupe or incompetent. I simply pointed out, as an aside no less, that the adjusting of reaction conditions to generate more positive results, as reported by Nature, was unusual and perhaps an example of how beliefs can drive research, something against which Nature warns. As for the Gates foundation and the NIH, they were set up not to confirm anyone's beliefs about a particular condition, but to fund research and treatment initiatives in which distribution of funds is determined by various factors but includes what should theoretically be an unbiased review.

The current language, including the two or three words in dispute, is acceptable and consistent with the sources. Let's spend our time improving the encyclopaedia, perhaps even non-CFS-related articles, instead of seeking to debate our views of collaborators or whether this condition or that should receive more funding. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

From your wording it wasn't clear that you were quoting AW on the virus vs CBT and GET point. My comments were addressed to the author and if you say it wasn't your own assertion then I accept that. As to the rest of your summary: my point about Science peer review and collaborators covers the work of WPI up to the publication of its Science article. I am not sure what your point about other uncontroversial facts was. If you think that we've missed some material aspects of the controversy -- for example what most editors would consider fringe statements by the officers of WPI -- then as long as they are covered by content based on solid RS, relevant to the article and within WP PnG, I don't think any of frequent editors to this page would have a problem with their inclusion. I am not sure who you are addressing your "non-CFS-related articles" point at, and I can't really comment as I already do so. -- TerryE (talk)

One000 banned

For those interested One000 has been banned from WP for his one edit. [5] His talk page contains the link to the SPI. Byanose hasn't for some reason. I've also made some comments on the SPI process on the SPI talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. Why don't you move it to your talk page? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As it affected editors who were involved here and only here, I can see the relevance, and I wish it had been mentioned here previously. On the flip side, however, I only wish it had been mentioned here so that it didn't appear that it was editors who favour one POV ganging up on an editor who favoured a different POV — or put more simply, I believed that was a sock as well, and would have liked to have had the chance to say so. Terry does make some good points on the SPI page, but having seen rampant sockpuppetry here and elsewhere, I have to say, it really did look like a sock who hadn't gone to quite enough effort to disguise that fact. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I also had no idea this had happened. I actually emailed Arthur Rubin about my suspicions but I had no idea that anyone had opened an SPI. It really should have been mentioned here. I've also added some comments in the SPI talk page (link above). --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of the sometimes heated tone of our discourse, I very much appreciate RobinHood70's candour above. This was one of the most obvious sockpuppet cases I've seen, and as SW notes elsewhere, these were likely not the only socks in the drawer.

I appreciate other editors' desires to be informed, but there is a reason behind the lack of requirement for an SPI alert. It is to allow uninvolved administrators to assess the situation and take appropriate actions without giving the involved parties a chance to cover themselves or engage in further disruption. And without POV allies jumping into the fray and coaching the sockpuppets as TerryE did. I'm sorry if others were offended or concerned by the lack of notification, but I feel that I followed policy here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to accusation this on K's talk page.[6] Forgive the diff, but my posts on K's talk page don't last long. I want to emphasise that I believe that K and OM followed the current process. It's the process that I feel is unjust. -- TerryE (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that the problem is the process, then discuss it over there. If you have a problem with the editors, there are places for that. This does not seem to be the place for a meta-discussion. I enjoy editing collaboratively with you, but this particular discussion doesn't seem geared toward improving the WPI page per se. -- Scray (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-xmrv-chronic-fatigue-20110510,0,1125656.story --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SW. See also: http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-xmrv-chronic-fatigue-20110506,0,7721861.story Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So this is the same as I've seen with lots of false claims in medicine and science. The WPI says, "we're right, and real science is wrong, because of......conspiracies, bad technique, Big Pharma, their science is all wrong, blah blah blah." As I've said, science is, at it's core, skeptical. It takes a lot to become an accepted theory, not just one suspicious claim by an outfit that has people with dodgy backgrounds, like being a bartender or whatever. Real science slammed this retrovirus connection. And the article doesn't make one of those "we need more research to make a final conclusion" comments. It was rather definitive. Anyways, the WPI at this time appears to be pushing a fringe theory or pseudoscience and should be tagged as such. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Compare how Bob Silverman and Judy Mikovits reacted to the contamination findings. Silverman was concerned and reflective and interested in getting to the bottom of if and why and how. Mikovits was indignant and accused others of a conspiracy. Obviously every scientist has reputation and often other interests riding on their findings, but you have to be skeptical of even your own results. This seems to be turning into an example of why advocacy and science are not always compatible. It's one thing to push for funding and more research, it's another to decide the correct outcome of research in advance and reject everything else. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This happens way too often on Wikipedia, and, of course, in the real world. Look what Andrew Wakefield did for the world—essentially causing the deaths of hundreds of children. Same thing here (though without the deaths). Look at the medical articles here. One small report shows up saying this or that, and someone puts it in the article. Yet years later, how many labs have confirmed it. In this case, we have a lab that completely debunks the idea that XMRV has anything to do with the mysterious CFS. This is why I stand up to this junk science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a suspicious sort, wherefor art our friendly editors who threatened us with RfC's, AN/I's, and bodily harm. OK, no bodily harm, but they've disappeared. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Orangemarlin, Keepcalmandcarryon. Please, "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." This was not a small report, Discover Magazine listed the Science publication as one of the top 100 stories of 2009.[7] Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We're the objective ones. We thought this claim was full of shit from the beginning. Your personal attack will be ignored, per my usual policy on personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Ward has a point: this is getting rather far afield and everything after the links that SW and KCACO provided has very little to do with the improving the article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. – RobinHood70 ^talk 06:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, feel free to delete my comment if you feel it was soapboxing. However, I don't think my comments or those of OrangeMarlin were inappropriate, and certainly no more so than the tiresome lecturing that comprises most of your comments towards me. Instead, we were discussing this article and the rather one-sided contributions of certain single purpose accounts as an example of how advocates of junk science use Wikipedia to advance their agendas. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Negative studies

While we're on the topic of things that need removing from the article, can anybody find something reliable that makes reference to the fact that numerous studies have failed to find XMRV? While I understand how and why it came about, at this point, the number of refs in the Negative studies section is a prime example of CITEKILL. I went looking, but all I found were various CFS sites and blogs that wouldn't be considered reliable sources. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about WPI

Pro-WPI individuals, including those who use Wikipedia to advance their views on CFS, have been insistent from the start that the Science report was a product of the Cleveland Clinic and NCI, not just WPI. In fact, in contrast with NCI and Cleveland Clinic, WPI spearheaded and was defined by the effort. WPI was set up by individuals who believed a virus to be the cause of CFS. They hired a virologist to find that virus. Mikovits decided that XMRV was possibly associated with CFS. Mikovits and Lombardi were the first to look for XMRV in samples. They sent the samples out for confirmatory testing. And to whom? To Mikovits's former lab and mentor.

In my view, it's approaching WP:BLP territory to use the lede to associate NCI and Cleveland Clinic as a whole with this increasingly ugly mess, in which calls for retraction have already been made. WPI was fully involved with and defined by this paper. As we know from the reliably sources, researchers from NCI and the Cleveland Clinic played relatively minor roles, and their institutions virtually none. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors added to the article, "the report was a product of the Cleveland Clinic and NCI, not just WPI" because that is what reliable sources including the NCI and Cleveland Clinic state. The original Science study states it,[8] the NIH states it,[9] the NCI states it,[10], the Cleveland Clinic states it,[11], A pubmed XMRV review from the Science article authors that include the Cleveland Clinic states the Science publication samples were tested at the Cleveland Clinic labs and confirmed positive,[12][13] another pubmed XMRV review from the WPI and NCI Science authors review the Science study and state it was, "Our recent study⁴"[14] The New York Times states it,[15][16], the Chicago Tribune states it, [17] and I'm sure I can find others.

Keepcalmandcarryon, concerning your statement above, "NCI and the Cleveland Clinic played relatively minor roles, and their institutions virtually none." AFAIK there are no reliable sources stating that.

Keepcalmandcarryon, your edit removed the "National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic" from the lead with an incorrect edit summary that stated, "Not all verifiable material need be in the lede; it's covered later". It's incorrect because "the National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic" names from the body was removed by your edit in March. The reliable sources unequivocally state the researchers from the the National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic collaborated on the science paper. It may be a mess at this time but it's no reason to rewrite history. If and/or when the Science paper is retracted that will be added to the article.

As the article states Annette Whittemore initially believed an infection (not virus) to be the cause of CFS from this source.[18] The WP article also states, "Mikovits attempted to find a connection between CFS and infections", supported by this source. The same source doesn't say Mikovits was unsuccessful, it stated that with regard to previous research to find a pathogen, "None panned out".

@Keepcalmandcarryon, I counted 9 times since April 11 2011 that various editors including myself have asked you to cease making accusations about editors and or talking about motivations of editors on this talk page, and there has been many more previous to that. Yet it continues in the first paragraph of this section. This is unacceptable. Ward20 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because one of the authors or a little bit of the research was done at the Cleveland Clinic or NCI doesn't mean anything. And Ward20....your threats are so boring. Give it a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ward cited numerous references that all included the NCI and Cleveland Clinic. KCACO and OrangeMarlin have given us their opinions. I think it would be best for the article if they or others could give us more than an opinion...you know, like, say, sources saying that their involvement was minimal or was exaggerated in earlier reports.

Also, I fail to see how negative XMRV studies or the connection between XMRV and CFS being disproven or debunked—as mentioned in the most recent reversion edit summary—has anything whatsoever to do with who was involved in the research. – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave many reliable sources, discussed the edits on the talk page above and in my edit summaries, for all of my changes. One of the changes fixed a WP:BLP violation that claimed something about Mikovits that wasn't in the cited reference. The changes were reverted with the edit summary, "Reverting POV edits for a thoroughly debunked theory." The changes had nothing to do with any theories. They were adding reliably sourced details about WPI personnel and collaborators, and removing original research about Mikovits. There has been no sources given to dispute my changes so I am reinstating my changes. Ward20 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ward20, I believe that you are misinterpreting the links you present above, leading you to argue at cross-purposes to the other editors here. Nobody is disputing that coauthors of Lombardi 2009 worked at various institutions. The organizational and funding structures of large general-purpose institutions like NCI and Cleveland preclude them throwing the monolithic weight of their prestige behind every paper written by every researcher associated with them. The association can be used by readers as a loose trust metric, but for the most part even listing a researcher's home lab is just advertising or an aid to readers who may half-recognize a name (funding sources is a separate case). They generate press releases for pretty much everything for pretty much the same reason. This is just how modern science works, and using non-standard phrasing is just going to confuse people. The in depth discussion at #Science publication and response makes sense, but mentioning the author associations in the lead or writing in such a way to give the impression that these other institutions are or have been actively promoting this particular paper is misleading.

I think you may also have included the wrong link above. This edit from Keepcalmandcarryon that you mention above adds information about co-authors rather than removes it. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2/0, the other institutions did promote this paper as a collaborative effort among the researchers as the press releases from the various institutions indicate,[19] [20] [21]. Authors from both the NCI and Cleveland Clinic have published reviews with the WPI authors (above) confirming the Science study. AFAIK the NCI and Cleveland Clinic have not put out any press release or paper refuting the Science paper. That may change with the 6 June paper from Siverman, Human infection or lab artifact: will the real XMRV please stand up?

Concerning Keepcalmandcarryon's edit you pointed out, your right, I completely screwed up because I didn't read down far enough. I apologize to Keepcalmandcarryon for getting that wrong. Thank you for pointing it out, fixing the article there, and for your copy editing. I will strike out my talk page material about the link. Ward20 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with omitting NCI and Cleveland Clinic from the lede with regard to Lombardi2009 - this WP article is about WPI, and so mention of WPI establishes the reason Lombardi2009 is being discussed (this does not apply to mention of NCI or Cleveland Clinic); furthermore, listing NCI and Cleveland Clinic in this way represents undue weight for those institutions' involvement. -- Scray (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixing inaccuracies

The article states, "In response to contradicting results, Mikovits has stated that scientists have doctored their studies to reach a predetermined conclusion and are part of an insurance company conspiracy."

The source,[22] dated Jan 13, 2010, states:

"If there was one copy of the virus in those samples, we would have detected it," McClure said.

But McClure and her team did not duplicate the scientific techniques used by the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic, Judy Mikovits, a lead researcher at the institute, said Tuesday.

"You can't claim to replicate a study if you don't do a single thing that we did in our study," she said. "They skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood."

The Whittemore-Peterson Institute issued a statement saying the British study was published after only three days of review as opposed to the institute study that underwent six months of vigorous peer review plus confirmation by three independent laboratories before it was published in Science magazine.

The statement also cited different techniques used in the British study that make its conclusions meaningless, including the use of a molecular plasmid control in water instead of a positive blood sample.

"They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine)," said Mikovits said, who[Sic] "suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study".

Mikovits response is only about the first negative study led by Erlwein,[23] and an upcoming Science Magazine news article.[24] The WP article statement is too vague, too broad, and IMO too tabloidish. Ward20 (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that anything that is even slightly negative about WPI is problematic for you? Mikovits making such an accusation is something that you just don't see from real researchers. And by the way, it's not called "Science Magazine". It's just Science. Unless we're not talking about the journal published by the AAAS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am mainly objecting to the broadness and vagueness of the wording. She didn't say it in response to all contradicting results, or all scientists that got contradicting results, or that scientists are part of an insurance company conspiracy.

How is your opinion that what she said is, "Something that you just don't see from real researchers" any type of criteria to add it to the article? Seriously, what is the criteria that should be used here? Why give that more weight than, "The Whittemore-Peterson Institute issued a statement saying the British study was published after only three days of review as opposed to the institute study that underwent six months of vigorous peer review plus confirmation by three independent laboratories before it was published in Science magazine". If an editor believes something off color is stated by a WPI critic it should be included in the article? Should material be worded broadly or vaguely to encompass things not intended by the source? Seriously.

OK, I'll call it Science, I don't care. I assumed it was either(Home > Science Magazine > 15 January 2010 > Kean, 327 (5963): 254-255)). Ward20 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on this one: publicly making that kind of assumption is something that certainly paints Mikovitz in an unprofessional light, but at the same time, we only have evidence that that was her feeling for the initial results. Later statements from WPI toned down the rhetoric a bit. I don't think a major change to the article is required here...I introduced the word "initial", which is really all we need. I also did a minor re-write just to harmonize the tense of that paragraph with the surrounding text. – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mikovits and WPI have clearly shown themselves in a very unprofessional light, and that continues to this day. There are lots of other instances where Mikovits has said similar things, and the fact that WPI continues to sell the XMRV test now that it has been pretty well discredited is clearly .... well I can't actually use the necessary words here without breaking a bunch of wikipedia policies. The point is that we need to include these unprofessional rants (without describing them as such) so that readers can make up their own minds. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While that's true, at least in my mind, the cited source is from early 2010 and doesn't support claims of an ongoing belief or repeated response to criticisms. It's not that I dispute it, I'm just saying that with a source that old relative to the events in question, it doesn't provide evidence of the ongoing responses. I notice AR removed my "initial" wording, but if we're going to do that, we need to demonstrate that that's an ongoing response to criticisms or we're bordering on BLP issues. To accurately reflect the source, I've used the term "British" for now, and if we want to demonstrate that it's a broader issue, then we can find more sources. Given that we're talking about WPI's responses, primary sources (i.e., links to the responses on WPI's website) may be applicable here. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We all know very well that Mikovits and others from WPI have made all manner of statements accusing others (scientists, doctors, government officials) of research misconduct (skewing experiments, selecting cohorts that aren't "really" sick, etc.), bias against CFS and CFS patients and conflicts of interest (insurance company money, etc.). It's somewhat disturbing to me that several editors suggest this information either be removed or be qualified as if the statements pertained only to one geographically limited study. If you want additional sources, you know them. Demanding that others add these sources when you know them well is quite puzzling. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In just one source, the Nature feature, Mikovits alleges suppression of data (by government/researchers) and deliberate failure to try to replicate WPI studies; calls a Retrovirology paper "garbage"; states that scientists with results contradicting hers not only do not "believe" CFS exists, but also allow these beliefs to determine their results (again, an implicit accusation of misconduct); and puts everything down to "politics". This article is two months old. There's no indication the Mikovits/WPI response to negative results has changed substantially since early 2010. It bothers me that we are even discussing this when we all know what's in the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I agree that there have been numerous unprofessional statements from some of the people at WPI, but honestly, I read the occasional news article or press release and move on, so contrary to your assertions, I don't know the additional sources, nor do I have the time, energy or interest to research them. As you should be well aware if you've been following my contributions at all, I mostly stick to grammar and punctuation fixes, adding tags, and occasionally verifying existing sources. Researching and presenting information is not something I consider myself terribly skilled at, especially in the brain fog of CFS, so I leave that to others who are more clear-headed. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandcarryon, The no original research policy states, "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." The verifiability policy "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.[1]", and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I don't know all the sources out there either, and I don't know where in the Nature article[25] some of the statements above are supported. I have no idea where Mikovits and others from WPI talk about, "selecting cohorts that aren't "really" sick,". Please supply the article wording that supports the assertions in your two paragraphs above. I did find where she calls a Retrovirology paper garbage. Some of the other assertions appear to be exaggerations of what the Nature article actually states, but I may not be looking at the wording in the source that does support the assertions. On talk pages editor opinions can be expressed to a certain extent, but the article must adhere to the no original research and verifiability policies. Ward20 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Which specific statements of Keepcalmandcarryon's could you not find supported? I started researching some of the ones you highlighted initially and found them readily, and then you apparently did too and removed those specific criticisms. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I make mistakes, I assume the reference is to my error that 2over0 stated? Here is one I didn't find, and some I thought went beyond what was expressed in the sources that have been discussed. I don't claim that Keepcalmandcarryon doesn't have sources for them, I can only say what I know about or can't find.

• "selecting cohorts that aren't "really" sick"
• "deliberate failure to try to replicate WPI studies"
• "bias against... CFS patients"
• "(insurance company money,"

Ward20 (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article states, "Annette Whittemore expressed the opinion that the response to her organization's claims was political, while the director of clinical services, Deckoff-Jones, characterized the negative research findings as a "cover-up and baseless attacks against Dr. Mikovits". The WP article states these assertions as facts. These are editor interpreted assertions made by Trine Tsouderos, Tribune reporter who was interpreting Annette Whittemore and Deckoff-Jones statements.[26] Additionally, part of the Deckoff-Jones material appears incorrect because the Tribune states a "cover-up by researchers seeking to discredit the XMRV link", not negative research findings. Following the quote back to Deckoff-Jones blog,[27] she was taking about contamination. It seems to me rewording is necessary to comply with WP:NPOV. I would try to fix it, but I believe It would be reverted. Ward20 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The statements in question are directly supported by the given sources and are not interpretations of interpretations. The suggestion that a reliable source is actually unreliable because 1) a particular editor is citing it; and/or 2) it was written by a specific reporter ... is simply untenable. I notice also that you've removed additional verifiable information, as BLP violations, no less!, such as the fact that Mikovits met Annette Whittemore at a conference following the intro to a friend in the bar (something you have noted in the past, if I recall correctly) and the negative results prior to the XMRV finding. These aren't BLP violations in any way. And if the sourcing is inadequate, you know the appropriate sources better than I. It's puzzling to me that, instead of helping to improve the article, you choose to question and perhaps even delete whatever you consider to portray WPI in a negative light, whether others share your interpretation or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so now they met in a bar? That's news to me, I thought it was while she was tending bar at a yacht club. Granted it's a bit down to semantics, but meeting in "a bar" gives the impression that they were in, well, "a bar" whose only purpose is being a bar, and that they were either drinking or being a bartender. Saying that they met while she was tending bar in a yacht club gives much more the impression that they were both there for leisure activities where, as a member of the executive, Mikovits happened to be the person serving drinks at the time (which is the impression I got from the original article).

More to the point, however, I thought that we had come to a compromise on that issue after I pointed out that it was irrelevant to the background of the controversy how they met (I don't even feel it's all that necessary to mention the HHV-6 Foundation conference, but it makes an appropriate lead-in I guess), but that it was entirely appropriate and relevant on a more detailed article that included Mikovits' career history. Certainly you rushed right over to re-create an article about Mikovits when I mentioned that I thought it would be more appropriate there and seemed to not worry so much about it being here after that...until now when you apparently want to resurrect the topic...yet again.

As I've said, I hold no particular fondness for WPI or Mikovits (and if any of you are following my contributions to one of the Facebook groups, you'll know that I'm in hot water with the rest of the CFS community for saying so), and I feel they've been very unprofessional about a number of things, but it really is inappropriate to insert "bartending" into a background of the controversy over XMRV and CFS. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, you stated, "the statements in question are directly supported by the given sources and are not interpretations of interpretations". Please supply the wording in the sources that support the claims. I've specifically noted above the wording that doesn't appear to be supported.

No one suggested the Tribune source[28] was unreliable, nor, "because 1) a particular editor is citing it; and/or 2) it was written by a specific reporter". As I explained above, the sentence, "Annette Whittemore expressed the opinion that the response to her organization's claims was political, while the director of clinical services, Deckoff-Jones, characterized the negative research findings as a "cover-up and baseless attacks against Dr. Mikovits", doesn't comply with WP:NPOV because it doesn't attribute the assertions to the author of the Tribune article and states her assertions as facts, and Deckoff-Jones, didn't characterize negative research findings anywhere in the Tribune source.

The Mikovits met Annette Whittemore at a conference information was not removed.[29] It was edited and clarified, and I actually supplied a source for the previously unsourced information. I believe the only BLP violation that I removed that you reference was here. It was removed because, as I previously explained, it is not in the given source. The source[30] doesn't say Mikovits was unsuccessful, it stated that with regard to previous research by others to find a pathogen, "None panned out". Ward20 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@RH, the consensus reached was actually that the background of WPI's lead investigator is relevant to the subsequent controversy. As for your status in the CFS community, it's irrelevant here. I don't know about, care about or follow your contributions to social networking sites.

@W20, we attribute information to sources. We write, "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF, was...(NYT, BBC)", not "A stridently anti-IMF reporter for the New York Times gave her unprofessional assessment of the statements of a New York judge in the case of DSK..." As for Mikovits's virus hunt, it was unsuccessful, as the article makes quite clear. Unless you have evidence that "none panned out" refers only to the pre-WPI days, and that Mikovits has in fact reported numerous virus-CFS associations stemming from her pre-XMRV research at WPI, there's no BLP violation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, her background, in the sense of her career, is relevant. That she happened to be tending bar at a yacht club one night which eventually led to her employment at WPI really isn't. Also, my contributions to social networking sites should be of prime importance to you, since you seem to rather frequently portray people as having a certain motive or overarching goal to even copy-edits. If you're going to do so, you should at least take the time to make sure that you're accusing the right people of the motives they actually have. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't the bar-tending relevant? Again, top level scientists rarely go unemployed, even for a few days, so it goes to her character. However, if you have some proof that she was tending bar while doing research at a company or top ranked university because she needed the money, that goes to a wholly different character. Anyways, the whole XMRV link is pretty much dead, so her reputation is probably not very healthy any more, with or without the bar-tending experience.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The source[31] doesn't say she was employed as a bartender. It said tending bar. Searching mikovits Yacht Club in google brings up this link[32]. It appears she was a member of the Anacapa Yacht Club in 2006, the same time period that she was met the WPI contact.

The Anacapa Yacht Club website states,[33] "AYC is a hands on club that relies on its memberships through volunteerism to not only run and chair events but to partake in various duties at the club house once a year."

This Anacapa Yacht Club letter shows members do help tend bar, "A number of key members made the social program possible, notably Vice Commodore Cindy Schlageter, Bar Manager Pete Casamassima, Gloria Casamassima, Charlotte Overton, Joe Schlageter, Silver Staff Commodore Neil Weinrich, Chris Tucker, Doug Dodge, and all who helped in the kitchen and/or tended bar over the course of the year."

There is every indication that tending bar was simply a recreational activity at her yacht club which is completely irrelevant to the sense of her career. OM you said, "Again, top level scientists rarely go unemployed, even for a few days, so it goes to her character." Is there proof she was looking for a job at this time and that it goes against her character? Maybe she just took some time off from work after her last job to sail. To say that she was unemployed and it goes against her character is unsupported. Ward20 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)