'Plague of Corruption - Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science' - (p)review of book by Mikovits & Heckenlively

Source: Skyhorse Publishing

Datd: November 5, 2019

URL:
https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510752245/plague-of-corruption/

Ref: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781510752245

Interview:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Medi...w-Book-on-Vaccine-Coverage-Media-and-Govt.mp3

Plague of Corruption - Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science
----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Heckenlively, Judy Mikovits

264 Pages

November 5, 2019

ISBN: 9781510752245

Imprint: Skyhorse Publishing

Trim Size: 6inx9in

Hardcover $26.99

(Don't ask me - I'm just forwarding!)

 

The part that is supposed to be relevant to ME:

Not sure what this is about here with animal tissue.

 

Have you read the book? Dr Mikovits's co-author is an attorney so presumably it has been checked as being supported by evidence.

 

He's a notoriously untrustworthy anti-vaccine campaigner. His involvement is no sign of quality!

 

A medical work co-written by an attorney suggests to me that the content is snow, not science.

 

I didn't buy her books, but did read this article and it made me think IF she has been maligned like she says THEN there might be more to her claims...and vaccines might have problems they don't want investigated. I am not anti-science, but am anti-corruption. I want the truth about why I'm now stuck. I want an honest assessment of the viral components. I understand the anti-vax sentiments as I vaccinated every year with flumist and vaccinated my kids up until recently, when I got sick and started digging. I'm angry I'm sick. I want my life back. I'm wary of charlatans. I understand the fool me twice attitudes as I also have a past filled with being lied to. So I'm in a quiet still-hopeful desperation.
She says she wants the truth to come out. She says she has the data to back up her claims.
I read the history she has with this forum and others, Jonathan wrote about how viruses and AIDS work/don't work and I understand these things are far from our common sense, so we are in yet another way, vulnerable. BUT I want to keep the science probing the edges of understanding so we can get to the answer AND GET BETTER.
Here is her article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/retroviruses-poorly-understood-agents-of-change/

 

Tell me more? Notorious in what way?

 

Notorious to the point of being banned from Australia: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41104629

The previous book made claims that anyone following the XMRV debacle would know were false or misleading, and this seems to be continuing with the new book/movie. There have been lots of articles noting problems with these new claims, eg: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/plandemic-mikovits-arrest/

 

Also for fact-checking Plandemic:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...sial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/the-falsehoods-of-the-plandemic-video/

 

Also for fact-checking the video and Mikovits
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/06/judy-mikovits-pandemic/

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/11/what-pandemic-left-out-about-judy-mikovits/

 

I wonder if people like Lipkin had a sense of her back then, and that influenced some of their actions. It's good that lots of patients were discussing and learning the importance of things like blinding and that will have provided some protection from a charlatan, but also I suspect that some people in science were doing their best to protect us to.

 

Have you read the account of the Australian ban in 'Plague of Corruption'?

 

'Plague of Corruption' was published by Simon & Schuster and would have been carefully evidence-checked by its lawyers.

 

s4me is supposed to be a science forum. The press approach to 'Plague of Corruption' has been 'If you can't muzzle the person' [and boy did they try] 'mount a classic smear campaign'.

Did anyone notice the indecent haste with which the original Science paper was denounced? As if all parties concerned had had their replies pre-prepared?

 

And that is what it is. Members have been in to the details of all this over a period of years. The work on ME/CFS was not competent science. The virus was a contaminant. Dr Mikovits's subsequent pronouncements indicate that she doesn't actually understand how science works. She was a junior assistant in a lab before she took on ME/CFS work. Why would one want to defend work of this sort? There is no corruption or conspiracy involved in pointing out that incompetent work is incompetent.

If you want to argue otherwise can you provide any scientific reason to do so?

 

No. Regardless of what happened why with that travel ban, it is still an indication of notoriety.

When Mikovits' XMRV test was assessed with samples from CFS patients and healthy controls under blinded conditions it did not hold up. At the time, she acknowledged this. That is the central piece of science. Lots of us were watching that closely and remember the details well enough to instantly see the problems with her new story.

In addition, there were other problems with her work (beyond her simply making claims unsupported by the evidence), such as the use of a replicated image to support claims about two supposedly separate tests, which indicated misconduct even back then. Since then she has started making even more outlandish claims. To me, it seems that she has smeared herself and other people are now quite right to criticise her.

I expect that the Science paper retraction was carefully managed out of fear that Mikovits was a conartist looking to make a career taking advantage of desperate patients.

 

Scientific findings must be replicable. Not just by the initial investigators, but by others as well.

 

I doubt that publishers lawyers fact check books. I expect that would be too labour intensive.
Also there have been books published (not necessarily by S&S) that have been plagerised, or made up completely suggesting that close checking of facts doesn't happen.

Also, S&S are in the business of making money and where there is controversy there is real opportunity to exploit that for cash. I suspect that they would argue to presenting a side of the controversy as opposed to published to the of a matter.