Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety


Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety

#54279
Clark

Paul, I don’t know why the link button comes and goes for you. On my system, the button is absent when I have Javascript blocked, and it is present when Javascript is enabled. This behaviour has been consistent for months, but I’ll let you know if it changes.

No, like I said before, there won’t be criminal fraud charges for faked data; it’s not a crime.

Nonetheless, the evidence of fakery is right there in Mikovits’ two submissions; the blog post just points it out. The bottom panel of item C in figure 2 from Mikovits’ paper to Science in 2009, and slide 13 from her presentation in Ottawa in 2011. I think these are chromatography traces, but what they are doesn’t matter. The point is that they’re identical.

Say you were accused of a burglary. The evidence presented is your thumbprint. So in court, the prosecution shows your thumbprint as lifted from a stolen telly, and your thumbprint taken at a police station. The two match; the whorls go in the same directions, and have equal numbers of ridges.

But each impression of a thumbprint is unique; you never put your thumb against an object at quite the same angle and pressure, and objects have their own surface irregularities too…

So now your defence lawyer takes the two thumbprints and superimposes them – the whorls and ridges don’t just match, they’re identical. These aren’t two separate prints from the same thumb at all; they’re two copies of a single thumbprint. Your defence lawyer has just proven that you’ve been stitched up; somehow the thumbprint you gave at the cop shop has been recycled as if it had been found on the stolen telly.

Mikovits submitted the same chromatography trace as evidence for two completely different things; one or the other has to be fake evidence. The other blog post proves another data fraud; when set a test by an independent lab:

“when WPI/Mikovits are given samples where they do not know beforehand who is ‘supposed’ to be positive and who is ‘supposed’ to be negative, they cannot differentiate between CFS/Healthy/Positive controls”

But previously:

“Silverman […] unquestionably found VP62 plasmid in the samples he got from the WPI… and only in the CFS patient samples.

So Mikovits had been putting the VP62 plasmid into the CFS samples but not the control samples; she was selectively adulterating the samples she sent to Silverman.

This isn’t a matter of balance or opinion, or someone else’s side of the story. She cheated, she got caught at it and the evidence exists. Her scientific career was in tatters, so now she does anti-vax, a lot like Wakefield.

  • This reply was modified 5 months ago by modbot.