The manuscript didn't convince Science. After reviews by three referees and members of the Board of Reviewing Editors (provided for this article by Mikovits), the editors rejected the paper. “Although the referees were intrigued by your findings, they had a number of serious reservations,” read a 4 June letter, which included excerpts from reviewers.
The rejection letter noted that Science would re-review the paper if the authors could both retain the “novelty of its main message” and “address the referees' concerns with new data rather than with counter-arguments.” … An otherwise enthusiastic referee wrote that the “one major caveat I have is that the issue of potential contamination has not been completely dealt with.” A second referee found it odd that the genetic sequence of XMRV derived from CFS patients and the virus earlier discovered in prostate cancer were 99% similar. This “seems very unlikely and may indicate contamination, despite the evidence presented to the contrary,” the referee warned. One also wondered why they omitted Peterson as a co-author.
Pages
▼
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are most welcome! But please:
- No SPAM whatsoever, no supplements, no pharmaceuticals, no herbs or any other advertisements
- Absolutely no quack-doctors pushing their quack-BS websites (and if you are a quack, I will call you out)
- Be critical if you want to, but try to be coherent
Comments are moderated, because I am tired of Gerwyn-V99-The-Idiot and his moronic sockpuppets, and tired of the story of the two dogs, but I will try to publish everything else.
If you are not Gerwyn (and want to tell me something other than the story of the two dogs), then relax and write something! :-)