Dear Dr. Alberts

I need to go through this old stuff: For truthz, lolz and all! you know. I will try to provide a translation of the May 30th 2011 letter of our dear scientist Dr. Judy Mikovits into a language that I find is closer to reality and add some insulting sarcastic comments – my own satirical way of coping with the state of my illness and the help offered by the fine Dr. Judy Mikovits.

http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/FinalreplytoScienceWPI.pdf

Dear Dr. Alberts and Ms. Bradford:

Would it be constructed that I am malicious if I stated that I doubted the sincerity and candor of the usage of the word "dear" in the opening phrase by Dr. Judy Mikovits?

As the corresponding author of the Lombardi et al. study I want to express my deepest concern about the proposed issuance of your editorial expression of concern regarding our XMRV findings and its association with chronic fatigue syndrome. This is especially so in light of the gross disregard for the integrity of the scientific process by the apparent willful breach of your embargo by one of the authors or their collaborators.

"Gross disregard for the integrity of the scientific process"? Out of the mouth of Dr. Judy Mikovits? Mikovits the Non-Publisher, who notoriously does not publish her "findings" and instead talks about them in her famous and colorful lectures? I get the impression she is talking about herself here, when she writes "gross disregard for the integrity of the scientific process".

This has resulted in the apparent public knowledge of the contents of your request that we retract our seminal paper.

Only Dr. Judy Mikovits is allowed to manipulate the "apparent public knowledge" with her colorful and famous lectures – now that should be "apparent public knowledge" to everyone.

I would respectfully ask that you focus on the following key facts and reconsider your position.

Dr. Judy Mikovits will now try to throw sand in you eyes.

We share your deep concern over the number of negative non-replication studies in this new area of research.

I would imagine that Dr. Judy Mikovits is concerned about the number of negative studies (yes, it is unusual for ME/CFS that so many labs tried to replicate her findings), studies that failed to replicate her various contaminations – I wouldn't describe it as "sharing the concern" though.

And after all, nobody cared about the XMRV findings in prostate cancer, so I guess Dr. Judy Mikovits wasn't expecting that so many labs would jump on the XMRV wagon. Maybe a bit less alarmism next time dear Dr. Mikovits, if you want to keep scientists out of a scientific field?

However, the publication of your editorial expression of concern over the validity of Lombardi et al. findings are premature and would have a disastrous impact on the future of this field of science.

The concerns about the the validity of Lombardi et al. are premature? Premature as in "occurring or existing before the normal or expected time"? When would that normal or expected time be then? Yo, bro, I'm lettin' you finish and all, but let me peddle this BS for a little more time?

And yes, these publications do of course have a disastrous impact on the field of Dr. Judy Mikovits, though I doubt it is a field of science.

Please do not proceed down a path that could be detrimental to the scientific exploration of human retroviruses in infectious disease, cancer, and, therefore, the future health of millions around the world.

Please! Dr. Judy Mikovits needs this so she can continue to explore her own importance in that matter!

First, the title and substance of the Lombardi et al. study Detection of an Infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is accurate, and not one reported study has been able to show why it is not.

Yes, the substance of Lombardi is that Dr. Judy Mikovits found XMRV in the blood cells of patients – not that she found XMRV in patients. And not a single one of the reported studies has been able to show that Dr. Judy Mikovits did not put XMRV VP62 plasmid into these blood samples of patients or that she did not use 5AZA. Well, it is kind of hard to actually show what Dr. Judy Mikovits actually did, if she doesn't tell what she actually did.

Using four different methods including PCR (of cultured and co-cultured cells), detection of human gammaretroviral (HGRV) viral proteins (culture and co-culture detected by Western Blot and flow cytometry), anti-gammaretrovirus Env antibodies in human serum (competed by 7C10 rat monoclonal antibody), and virus isolation from primary cell and co-cultures, we reported evidence of human gammaretrovirus infection in at least 67 out of 101 CFS patients. 

Now we are talking.

Let me first take a look the methods four "different" methods used (I reordered it slightly) and notice that Dr. Judy Mikovits wrote "different" and not "independent":

• PCR (of cultured and co-cultured cells)
• Detection of human gammaretroviral (HGRV) viral proteins 
  (culture and co-culture detected by Western Blot and flow cytometry)
• And virus isolation from primary cell and co-cultures
• Anti-gammaretrovirus Env antibodies in human serum 
  (competed by 7C10 rat monoclonal antibody)

Three out of four depend on culture and co-culture – they may be "different" but they are not independent. These three steps could all be simply contaminated by XMRV VP62 plasmid to yield the results that were reported by Lombardi et al. 2009.

To explain the fourth one (the 7C10 antibodies) one would probably need something like 5AZA to help the results along – maybe Dr. Judy Mikovits could share her inside knowledge?

And only one type of antibody? SRSL? I am like so seriously underwhelmed, like totally.

The "in at least 67 out of 101 CFS patients" part is interesting – Mikovits the Non-Publisher is touring the world saying to her disciples everybody who wants to hear it that she found XMRV in 99 out of 101 patients of the Science study, but now it is only that "we reported evidence … in at least 67 out of 101"? (And by the way: Lombardi et al. 2009 reported "evidence" in *EXACTLY* 67 68 out of 101 patients)

In addition, we reported that 3.7% of the control population had evidence of infection.

of the samples. By XMRV VP62 plasmid. In the lab. Plus maybe 5AZA. Who knows? Dr. Judy Mikovits. But she doesn't kiss show contaminate and tell.

Second, this significant study was conducted over eight months and conducted in

five different laboratories.

Dr. Judy Mikovits makes fucking awesome calls to authority! Eight months and five laboratories, no, five different(!) laboratories! Take that dear Dr. Alberts! And here we are thinking that you just poured some XMRV VP62 plasmid into patient samples – doh, how stupid of us!

It resulted in the first isolation of a human gammaretrovirus from the blood of humans and concluded that this virus may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of CFS.

Cool! I will now go and put yoghurt into the a blood sample to be the first person to isolate yoghurt from the blood of humans! Yeah!

And I think it is highly unlikely that either yoghurt or XMRV VP62 plasmid are contributing factors in the pathogenesis of CFS. It is more like that XMRV VP62 plasmid is the major contributing factor in the self-centered ego-trip of a certain scientist wannabe heroine.

Electron micrographs of gammaretroviruses isolated from patients cells were shown in the Lombardi et al. study and support these conclusions.

Ohhhh! You made pictures of viral particles! Now, that of course changes everything!

Pictures never lie!

These electron micrographs do not show VP62 plasmid contamination.

And I am certain Dr. Judy Mikovits went to great lengths to achieve that these electron micrographs don't show XMRV VP62 plasmid contamination.

In addition, we have maintained the viral isolates of five patients from which the electron micrographs were derived.

And you just forgot to post gene sequences that showed that it wasn't VP62?

Moreover, data presented in Lombardi et al. suggested additional strains of gammaretroviruses and viral Gag proteins could be directly immunoprecipitated from the blood of patients supporting a finding that additional strains of HGRV were isolated.

Oh, you mean the ERVs you found after a round of 5AZA? I would say interpreting the data in Lombardi et al. in a way that would suggest additional strains of gammaretroviruses and viral Gag proteins (Say WHAT? Strains of viruses and proteins?) were isolated borders somewhere between delusion and fraud. Or maybe a blunt lie. With the fine Dr. Judy Mikovits, I sometimes get fuzzy on the these details.

In fact, subsequent work by Jones et al. presented at Cold Spring Harbors supports the presence of more than one strain of HGRV.

Look, over there!

So, Dr. Judy Mikovits clearly stated in Lombardi et al. 2009 that she found VP62, all the gene-sequences she and her lab published are from VP62, but when Jones et al. presents some data showing he might have found something else, it is proof that there are other "HGRV" present? Other "HGRV", that Dr. Mikovits is unable to find, unlike VP62?

The original manuscript submitted to Science discussed DG75, a human B cell line, from which a MLV-related virus was fully sequenced.

Look, over there!

Dr. Judy Mikovits, savior of human B cell lines.

This raises the possibility of many viruses originating from recombination events as human tissue has been passed through mice for more than five decades.

Look, over there!

Yeah, it is a possibility like so many things (I could become the Queen of England tomorrow, who knows?), but Lombardi et al. 2009 does not support this "possibility" through, you know, evidence and stuff – it only supports that there was VP62 in patients samples and it is a bit murky how it got there.

PCR would not have detected a DG75 isolate but the rat monoclonal Env antibody used in these studies can detect DG75 isolates.

Look, over there!

But Lombardi et al. 2009 quite clearly states it is VP62 and not DG75.

This raises the question of how many gammaretroviruses are circulating in the human population with the potential of contributing to human disease.

And it raises the question if Dr. Judy Mikovits had access to viral strains other than VP62, would we now be on a wild goose chase for many different strains that exist only in blood samples in the lab of Dr. Judy Mikovits – with the potential of contributing to her self-centered ego-trip of this scientist wannabe heroine.

And it raises the question if Dr. Judy Mikovits should be tested if to find out whether logic is only a contaminant in her system.

Third, this study showed that human gammaretrovirus was transmissible, and a more recent study has confirmed these data in an animal model and has shown that there could be different routes of entry and difference in blood reservoirs between acute and chronic infection.

Where the fuck did Lombardi et al. 2009 show that "HGRV" was transmissible? Where? In the reality of Dr. Judy Mikovits this is probably showing how to be responsible and doing ME/CFS patients a service – in my reality I would call that a blatant lie. Or maybe I am doing Dr. Mikovits injustice and it is simply a case of self-delusion. Who knows?

Fourth, this study conducted the following tests to insure that the reported data were not as a result of contamination, including the detection of a human antibody response to the virus, the screening of all reagents and cell lines for any evidence of gammaretrovirus contamination, human or otherwise.

Dr. Judy Mikovits would never contaminate any samples with XMRV VP62 plasmid – I repeat: NEVER – without checking for accidental contamination before doing so. Or maybe after doing so. And the same goes for the usage of 5AZA. Who do you think you are dealing with here?

The antibodies used to detect viral proteins in Lombardi et al. were rat monoclonal and goat polyclonal antisera, all of which were negative for murine contamination; all reagents used in PCR and tissue culture were lot tested for contamination.

No accidental contamination here, see? Dr. Judy Mikovits made extra sure.

In addition, it was clearly stated in the Supplemental Methods which taq enzyme manufactures were shown to be contamination free.

You are so wrong if suspect accidental contamination. So wrong. Shame on you.

None of the negative papers, which demonstrated contamination, used the enzymes or antibody reagents used and recommended by Lombardi et al.

Not that it would have changed their results. After all Dr. Judy Mikovits never was too forthcoming about the XMRV VP62 plasmid and the 5AZA that seem necessary to get the "correct" results.

All samples and controls were processed in the exact same way and placed in a clean lab free from any other cell line.

Could this be the first (and only) open lie? After all the letter does says that samples and controls were processed in the exact same way, now doesn't it?

Please note that neither Lombardi et al. 2009 nor this letter state that the processing was done blinded – which is a mistake only third-class scientists make.

Only five human cell lines were grown in the WPI laboratories during the time these studies were conducted: Raji, SupT1, HFF, LNCaP and HSB2 and all were shown at the initiation of and throughout these studies to be free of XMRV/VP62 and all were used as negative control tested weekly by every method (including pelleting of supernatant over glycerol for virus isolation).

What a brilliant throw of sand in our eyes by Dr. Judy Mikovits. She denies that cell lines contaminated with XMRV VP62 were in her lab. What she doesn't deny – that she had XMRV VP62 in her lab – is the pebble to watch for.

No murine cell line was grown in the WPI labs prior to the submission of the Lombardi et al. manuscript.

More throwing of sand into eyes, no mention of XMRV VP62 plasmid – because there is no need for a murine cell line to use XMRV VP62 plasmid.

The murine BAF cell line was cultured and used after the July 22, 2009 NCI closed meeting on XMRV during which all of the data of Lombardi et al. was shown not only to one of the reviewers of the original manuscript but also to John Coffin who wrote the accompanying commentary.

More throwing of sand into eyes, no mention of XMRV VP62 plasmid – because there is no need for a murine cell line to use XMRV VP62 plasmid.

We were requested at that time to run the mouse mitochondrial assay to show absence of mouse contamination.

More throwing of sand into eyes, no mention of XMRV VP62 plasmid – because there is no mouse mitochondrial DNA in XMRV VP62 plasmid after all to find.

We conducted this assay on samples from all 101 patients in Lombardi et al. and published these data in the subsequent Virulence addenda, a copy of which is attached hereto.

More throwing of sand into eyes, no mention of XMRV VP62 plasmid – because there is no mouse DNA to be found after the usage of XMRV VP62 plasmid.

Dr. Judy Mikovits can state all this with a clean conscious, because it is the truth. The lie is in the omission – she does not say that she had XMRV VP62 in her lab.

While we have been advised by you that Paprotka et al. suggest a recombinant origin of an XMRV, it says nothing about the human gammaretroviruses detected and isolated from patient samples in Lombardi et al.

except, well, it does if Dr. Judy Mikovits has used the XMRV VP62 plasmid.

They cannot have any data to support the conclusion "that laboratory contamination with XMRV produced by a cell line (22Rv1) derived from these early xenograft experiments is the most likely explanation for detection of the virus in patient samples.”

because they search in the wrong direction because they don't know about the XMRV VP62 plasmid.

In fact, the authors of this paper know full well that this explanation cannot explain XMRV integration in human tissue, in situ hybridization, or antibodies reported in prostate cancer or CFS patients.

Look over there!

Only Dr. Judy Mikovits can explain all that!

Well, most of it. All except the prostate cancer thing. Dr. Judy Mikovits is innocent in that prostate cancer thing. I swear.

And she didn't show integrations sites either. So except these two.

And I'll be damned if she knew how to do in situ hybridization. So except this as well.

But she can do antibodies like a pro! Well, maybe not as a pro, more like a post-doc. Or a grad student. No, I think college kid fits it better. Make that high school pupil. Yeah, she can do antibodies like a high school pupil!

And what BS is "XMRV integration in human tissue" anyway? You never looked at tissue, my dear. You mainly graced the patients samples with your flagrance fragrance: Eau de XMRV VP62 plasmid – for patients samples.

Furthermore, all strains of wild rodents have not been examined and other examples of ancestral XMRV can be found.

Look over there!

Dang, nobody thought these guys would be so fast.  Let Dr. Judy Mikovits hand you some red herrings. Hmm, red herrings.

Neither 22Rv1 nor any of the cell lines reported to be contaminated with XMRV or cell lines growing the VP62 infectious molecularly cloned virus was in the laboratories where the patient cells were isolated.

Back in the sand/throw/eyes section. And any blood samples infected with the XMRV VP62 plasmid would not have been "cell lines", strictly speaking. So no lie here.

This can also not in any way explain the Env antibodies demonstrated in patient plasma in Lombardi et al.

Maybe 5AZA can? Who knows? Only Dr. Judy Mikovits.

The reactivity demonstrated to Spleen Focus Forming Virus (SFFV) Env was competed by the rat monoclonal antibody which detects all known xenotropic, polytropic and ecotropic MLVs.

 OMG! If it reactes to more strains of MLVs, then maybe more strains of MLVs are present!

This again suggests that we have, in fact, detected more than one strain of human gamma retroviruses in these patient samples.

!!!

Yeah, like all strains of gamma retrovirus could be present. Totally. Or more.

Now we have reached the 4th grade science fair level.

Seriously: Evolution called and wants your logical reasoning back.

Clearly data presented in Lombardi et al. where samples were PCR negative but Western blot positive, using the 7C10 antibody, further support the notion of a family of gammaretroviruses.

!!!

There is no support for your looney family of gammaretroviruses theories! You found VP62 – probably because you put it there – and nothing else. You have no evidence for HGRV.

These data must be appreciated as a complete body of evidence and not in the context of individual pieces, such as PCR amplification using primers designed to an arbitrary reference strain.

!!!

Yeah, like complete and wholistic and all. Like mother Gaia and all.

And forget the parts of Lombardi et al. Dr. Judy Mikovits doesn't like anymore: The parts she didn't had under her control, the only parts that seem to have been done with any honesty – the PCR and the gene sequences.

She just threw one of the five labs she was so proud of under the bus. The lab that produced exactly the same sequences as the WPI did. Which have been published by WPI a couple of days before Dr. Judy Mikovits wrote this "Dear Dr. Alberts" letter. This is either a blunt lie or total ignorance with regards to reality – just mind puzzling.

Furthermore, there is no complete body of evidence for "HGRV". You just threw out the PCR findings of VP62 ("arbitrary reference strain"), and now there is only a smoldering piece of dung left.

All of these data led Harvey Alter, in the NIH State of the Knowledge Workshop (April 2011), to draw the conclusion that there existed no evidence of contamination in ‘either the Mikovits or Lo labs’.

Here Dr. Judy Mikovits can be proud she was successful in throwing sand in the eyes of Harvey Alter. Poor thing, he seems to believe in the work of Dr. Judy Mikovits.

The authors are aware of ten negative CFS papers listed in PubMed on the subject of XMRV.

Eleven CFS papers, including her own.

Most of the negative studies failed to find any evidence of XMRV in any sample type.

Didn't they heard of XMRV VP62 plasmid and 5AZA? Oh, Dr. Judy Mikovits didn't tell them, that's why I guess.

This would suggest that the methods and materials used in the non-replication studies are insufficient to use when attempting to detect human gammaretrovirus in the blood of human samples.

And Dr. Judy Mikovits is not going to tell you what be the necessary methods and materials to yield the same results as Lombardi et al. 2009!

The methods, processes, and materials of Lombardi et al. need to be followed precisely.

Including the ones we didn't tell you about.

The Alter and Lo study is the only study which has attempted a partial replication of the methods and materials of the Lombardi study, which confirmed evidence of MLV related viruses.

Yeah, they tried to go for the accidental contamination instead of the intentional one.

Studies using multiple different methods are not replication studies, and studies optimized to detect murine gammaretroviruses and not human gammaretroviruses must be seriously questioned. See, Virulence attachment.

Yeah because Dr. Judy Mikovitis knew from day 1 how to look for human gamma retrovirus instead of murine gammaretroviruses! !!!

This is seriously surreal. Dr. Judy Mikovits presents NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER how these supposed human grv differ from murine grv. No evidence. No fucking evidence whatsoever. Nothing to show what these "HGRV" are supposed to be. No gene sequences, no nothing. But she tells us they are there. But she tells the world that the others are doing it wrong.

How can anybody take her seriously? How?

Scientific research of human gammaretroviruses is in its infancy.

Infancy? More like stillbirth, Dr. Mikovits.

Studies of XMRV and macaques are beginning to reveal information concerning the life cycle of the virus, multiple tissue reservoirs, and a description of factors that induce viral activation.

Look over there!

These studies would be of actual importance if XMRV were a human pathogen.

These studies are critical to understanding gammaretroviruses in human

disease.

Look over there!

These studies would be of actual importance if XMRV were a human pathogen.

Other human studies such as the one by Fischer et al., reported the detection of XMRV in the respiratory tract of immunocompromised individuals pointing to the potential for gammaretroviruses to be more easily transmitted than all other known retroviruses.

Look over there! Another study with contamination problems!

WPI researchers are contributing to the development of more accurate clinical testing methods with others in the blood working group.

And the abysmal result of this contribution to develop more accurate testing is now known.

I think Dr. Mikovits will later claim she knew of the problems with tests from VIP Dx / UNNEX (which were used for the BWG) for some time and tried to "stop" the WPI – but I don't have a quote, yet.

Without the participation of Drs. Alter, Lo and the WPI, who have proven gamma retroviral detection methods, it may be impossible to discover whether or not gammaretroviruses are a threat to human transfusion and transplantation medicine.

No, they have proven contamination methods – you bloody fearmonger.

In summary, human retroviruses are not known to infect individuals according to their sex or age therefore there can be no excuse as to why it would be acceptable to study the viruses in cancer but not in those with infectious neuro-immune diseases.

Oh, the study of XMRV in cancer will change too, don't worry. Or did you think you found a nice niche to hide in? Sow some confusion for the coming years?

They create lifelong infection in their hosts by integrating into the genome of their victims.

No shit, sherlock! Retroviruses really do that, now don't they? Well, if retroviruses that are actual human pathogens like HIV and HTLV, that is. Not lab contamination like XMRV VP62 plasmid.

Thirty years of murine gammaretroviral research provide compelling evidence that these viruses cause immune deficiencies, neurological disease and cancer in mammals and are therefore possible contributors to human neuro-immune diseases such as CFS.

Look over there!

However, good scientific work is difficult and takes time.

 No shit, sherlock! No danger from you, however.

These ongoing studies deserve to receive a fair and impartial evaluation in the peer-review process.

The same fair evaluation your XMRV VP62 plasmid contamination study received.

The critical question which remains is not simply whether gammaretroviruses play a role in CFS or cancer but in how many other human diseases?

Look over there!

And yes, you are a bloody fearmonger.

Therefore, we feel this is an extremely premature action which is not in the best interest of the scientific community or human health and again we respectfully request that you allow the scientific process to run its course unhindered by bias.

Dear Dr. Mikovits, the scientific community is not identical to your ego. Neither is human health. We respectfully request you stop your abuse of the scientific process. Sincerely up yours, the scientific community.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.

I was as thoughtful as required by this fine letter.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Judy A Mikovits Director of Research Whittemore Peterson Institute

That being said, I feel so much better. What a waste of time. What a fucking waste of time. And all in the name of the ego of Dr. Judy A Mikovits. Un. be. liev. ab. le.