As my following response was moderated on PhoenixRising, I post it here for documentation:
The problem is that you were not around in late 2009 when we were all asking these questions and missed the long threads as we worked through all these issues. I don't know if the patients who asked all the similar questions to yourself are still on this board or if they departed to other pastures.
It's rather like stepping into a party after a long conversation has taken place and then hoping someone will do a recap of what was said earlier on.
Sorry, I am not trying to fob you off and not trying to pretend that all questions were answered to our satisfaction. You are posing things that were asked at the time and I hope that someone will go back through those threads and find the answers for you and let you know. Lots of discussion on patient numbers and why they were different / didn't add up.
I just hope that someone has the physical / mental strength to do this or you find the relevant bits as I am really struggling right now.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that would be helpful. There was the original thread about the addendum, [URL="http://phoenixrising.me/forums/showthread.php?5428-Addenda-to-the-Science-paper&p=106754#post106754"]where Max Pfost promised that a correction would be posted[/URL].
[QUOTE=madmax;106754][QUOTE=V99;106706]Madmax, are there 8 patients missing from the addendum?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I noticed that, also noticed that they put the wrong version up. Should be changed soon.[/QUOTE]
But nothing happened.
As it is quiet on the forum at the moment, why not take the opportunity to go through the older threads fron 2009/10 on XMRV and follow the discussions there? I agree with ukxmrv that it is important to know some of the history of the debate.
I remember the early discussions as being very interesting and informative.[/QUOTE]
See above. The missing patients were noted (but not the the other problems I wrote about, as far as I can see). It was promised that the corrected data would be published. That didn't happen, as far as I can see.
If some researcher wants to look at what Dr. Mikovits has published, should he go through forums and search the internet for corrections? No, corrections should be published were the original material was published. I don't see this has happened.
ETA Tony, with just a bit of expansion, your OP would make a great blog post on PR. Have you thought about that?[/QUOTE]
That might be nice, [B]but I want to be sure that it wasn't [U][I]me[/I][/U] that made a false interpretation[/B].