– “I am aware what SA and Clark think about Dr. Judy Mikovits, but to help balance the discussion…”
Science is about evidence, not opinion. Mine and SA’s opinion about Mikovits isn’t relevant; she acted in such a way that she is can no longer be regarded as a scientist, by other scientists. She either faked data (basically certain), or failed to cooperate in working out why her data didn’t fit with that of other scientists (she did cooperate at first, or rather her institute did, but the results looked just like they would if previously, she’d faked her data). Anyone who does this doesn’t get a second chance to be respected by other scientists – they faked their data, they simply can’t be trusted. Nature is complicated enough as it is without time-wasters who distort the evidence. And Mikovits wasted years of people’s research time, investigating her claim that wasn’t wrong, it was made up.
At that point she stopped doing science and effectively started claiming that everyone else was faking data, and collaborating to make their faked data look real; “corruption at the highest level” etc. That’s why it’s called “conspiracy theory” in this case, because the only way Mikovits data could be right would be if all the other scientists who worked on this subject were collaborating in secret to make their false data match each other’s before they published in the scientific journals, even new teams who’d never looked at it before.
There could never be any new discoveries under those conditions.
Once you get used to it it’s quite easy to spot this sort of behaviour masquerading as science. Think of all the “free energy” claims; they always have some excuse, like “men in black wrecked the lab and destroyed all the notes; everyone else is lying to protect energy companies’ profits”. There are loads of them. Quite often they manage to attract investment and then make off with the dosh.