Talk:Judy Mikovits

Reason for Bio

worked on this discovery ^ http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/055 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrake99 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

described as a very important discovery and potentially groundbreaking as XMRV is a relatively new retrovirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.238.102 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Although I successfully argued for merging this with Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus in the recent deletion debate, on second thoughts, I think it would be better to merge this article with Whittemore Peterson Institute, of which she is the research director. Sorry, I've only just realised that article exists. If no-one disagrees I'll do that in a few days' time. --Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that's a better solution. In fact, I believe most of the material in the Judy Mikovits article is already in the Whittemore Peterson Institute article. Some fresh eyes on this would be welcome. Ward20 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging is a RUBBISH idea, harvey whittemore has his own page as does Dr Peterson....Mikovits has a career and life apart from the WPI, she isnt JUST the WPI, she is a PERSON, therefore merging her page is futile, she should have her own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.36.186 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. Merging is a very strange idea Bougatsa42 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Unmerge

I have no particular opinion on whether or not Judy Mikovits deserves her own article, however given that it has just been re-created after a consensus to merge & redirect, I believe it would be appropriate to outline the WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC guidelines that are being used to support its recreation. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikovits meets WP:BASIC, as she is the subject of "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Take, for example, the 14 March, 2011 lengthy news feature in Nature and the accompanying editorial, both of which are primarily about Mikovits, her work and the reaction to it and the March, 2011 article in the Chicago Tribune. In addition, university and local papers in Nevada have published articles on Mikovits, her organisation and their work; there has been nationwide coverage of Mikovits in the US press, with well over 100 items in outlets including the journal Science, National Public Radio, ABC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, Discover magazine, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, to name a few; and there is also international coverage: Corriere della Sera, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Tagesspiegel and many more. While not all are focused exclusively on Mikovits, they explore her role in leading the only positive study of XMRV and CFS.

Mikovits meets WP:ANYBIO (#2) for the latter reason: she started and led the investigation that began one of the most intense medical debates of the moment. Were it not for Mikovits, the heated international controversy of XMRV/CFS, pitting scientific results against the wishes of patient advocacy groups, would likely not exist. This alone would qualify her for a biography on Wikipedia.

Although the general notability criteria are clearly fulfilled, Mikovits also meets WP:PROF (#1): "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The response to Mikovits and her study in the scientific literature has been intense. For more information, see our article on XMRV. Mikovits and her work have also been an important topic of presentation and conversation at several major scientific meetings since 2009. She, her work, her advocacy of unproven treatments, etc. have attracted comments at these meetings and in the press from some of the leading virologists of our time, including but not limited to John Coffin, Jon Stoye, Stuart Le Grice, Mark Wainberg, Greg Towers and Vincent Racaniello. A search of websites maintained or frequented by scientists shows that the topic of Mikovits, her comments and her research is much discussed. Although the reliability of these sources is perhaps questionable, I would point as two examples to the Virology blog of Vincent Racaniello, which may actually qualify as a reliable source due to the high quality of its content and the reputation of its author, and the intensely hostile criticism directed at Mikovits personally by a member of the ScienceBlogs writing team known as ERV, which has in turn generated its own coverage amongst both scientists and patient activists.

Since the notability guidelines are not strict rules, we should also consider Mikovits's reputation in the CFS and other patient communities. As reported amongst others by Nature and the Chicago Tribune, Mikovits has been hailed as a hero, even a saviour by patients who feel that CFS is caused by an infection and that the medical community has dismissed their concerns. The level of "adulation" has been so intense that Mikovits herself has professed discomfort with the attention. Since the appearance of her Science publication claiming a link between XMRV and CFS, over 30,000 mentions of Mikovits have been made on the Internet, mostin articles and comments on CFS message boards, blogs and advocacy websites. Mikovits is probably the central figure in the CFS activist community today, and as she reported in a recent interview, she spends most of her time on advocacy now, not science. Mikovits has also been hailed by members of the autism and anti-vaccine advocacy communities. Of course, the coverage has not all been positive. Daniel Peterson's departure from WPI, reportedly in response to Mikovits, was disturbing to some in the community, where Peterson has been almost universally admired for his role in defining CFS and his championing of the drug Ampligen and an infectious aetiology of CFS. A fissure has divided the community between those who continue to support Mikovits and those who oppose WPI for what they view as the poor treatment/exploitation of Peterson. Although there's a limit to the notability of these issues and how much can be said about them with the available sources, Mikovits's reputation and the controversies surrounding her in the patient community do add to her notability.

Consider also Mikovits's scientific contributions outside CFS. Whatever the degree of her scientific independence from her mentor Frank Ruscetti, Mikovits is a coauthor on about 30 peer-reviewed publications, a not insignificant contribution to the literature. Wikipedia includes biographies of many scientists who are not department heads or recipients of internationally recognised awards, and some of these have neither 30 papers to their names nor high buzz factor publications in Science. Also, compare Mikovits's coverage and contributions with those of others in the CFS field who have Wikipedia biographies, for example, Daniel Peterson and Leonard Jason (who would seem to be notable, if not as clearly as Mikovits) and Jacob Teitelbaum and Kenny de Meirleir, who appear to be much less notable than Mikovits and perhaps not notable at all.

I suspect we would be hard pressed to find more than ten or twenty scientists who have in the space of eighteen months received this much coverage or responses this intense, positive and negative, at any time in the past quarter century. There are certainly some members of the CFS patient community who would like to suppress information about her for positive or negative reasons, but there's really no question that this is a notable individual. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be too hard to justify at this point, but with the previous AfD, I figured there should be a formal justification for it. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to introduce a new section, but as my point really links into Keepcalmandcarryon's previous point. I only realised a few days ago that this article has been resurrected by K a week ago after its first deletion on 20 May 2010. Mikovits is clearly a scientist who has only come to public notice because of her role at WPI and in the controversies around its work on the possible association of XMRV and ME/CFS. She has strong supporters and strong critics and these have had some good things and bad things about her. She also has had very mixed coverage in the media, but this all related to a single notable issue. However, reading this article it seems to me that it only contains the negative side of this content, with a bare minimum of factual detail to act as a scaffold to hang this on. Without any balancing positive content, this seems to me to be a use of WP for a thinly disguised attack piece.

So out of interest, I did a bit of research to see what true biographical facts exist about Mikovits that might be used to balance this article.

• There is the 1998 NCI Bio (some 250 words) which has been referenced and cherry-picked and various references to her spending more than 15 years at the NCI.
• There is her time as CSO of Epigenx Bioscience from 2001-6, but this material is no longer web accessible since Epigenx went belly-up in 2006. However, there is a bio reference on another company's website (About Genomous) which claims that she is VP Disease & Medical Research.
• We also know from pubmed and google scholar searches that she's published 40 odd scholarly articles of which over 30 were peer reviewed MEDRSable, on HIV, HTLV-1, HHV-6, KSHV, XMRV, Epigenetics, etc. including a couple in 2006 when she was at Epigenx, and from the ones published 2001-2006 we know that she maintained a collaboration with her mentor Ruscetti during this time.
• We have the AW version of their intro in the Molecular Interventions AW piece where she states that "Judy Mikovits and I met at an HHV-6 Foundation conference in the spring of 2006."
• We have another short (280 word) Bio on the WPI website, together with many website which seem to use this as source.
• We know that she was a member of the Pierpoint Bay Yacht Club and was elected to junior commodore in 2005 ([1]). (Don't worry K, I am just teasing you. I accept that there is a difference in WP terms between "knowing" and RSable content.)
• We have many passing comments in various newspaper coverage to add a bit of colour and context about the main content, which is XMRV and ME/CFS, including the much discussed NYT article with the passing bar tender anecdote, which are a mix of laudatory and critical, with a trend towards critical.

My main point is that this is all very thin and circumstantial, and some of it inconsistent (e.g. how long did she work at NCI; what was her work timeline between NCI and WPI?) Not one RS has felt Mikovits to be sufficiently notable to merit a properly researched bio. We have nothing to report in this article other than scraps, and when we do pick over the scraps, only the negative ones seem to end up in this article. Even her mentor, Frank Ruscetti, doesn't have a WP article. I really have to ask: what has changed to merit overturning the AfD decision? -- TerryE (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And a codicil (which I'll indent to keep OM happy). I really do have to question Ks assertion "I suspect we would be hard pressed to find more than ten or twenty scientists who have in the space of eighteen months received this much coverage or responses this intense, positive and negative, at any time in the past quarter century." If you look at the coverage, this is virtually all about the controversy of the possible association of XMRV and ME/CFS, though some is also about the more fringe WPI claims.

Yes some of her statements and comments are discussed (in this context), but Mikovits herself? If you took XRMV out of this picture, then you would be left with chit chat and noise; no different from that the tens or hundreds of thousands of other low profile researchers generate. This is not about Mikovits herself, unlike much of the coverage about WakeField or Brian Cox which covers the person. No. I could easily give you a list of another 18 scientists who have generated more coverage this last year, so talking about "the past quarter century" is just daft. Let's not loose a sense of proportion here. -- TerryE (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you both focus on improving the article instead of accusing me of writing attack pieces? As detailed at length above, Mikovits is considerably more notable than many scientists with biographies on this encyclopaedia and also merits a biography based on general notability. Again, I think we can accomplish quite a bit more if we focus on adding to articles instead of attacking other editors and their contributions and deleting verifiable information.

For example, if one feels that Ruscetti should have a biography on Wikipedia, why not create one? The absence of a biography for one notable individual is poor justification to delete the biography of another. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Both"? All I asked for was a quick note as to why the article was being recreated after an AfD, which is consistent with Point 4 of If you plan to recreate. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Gah, indeed. I apologise. I thought that TerryE's first comment was from another editor (not you, by the way). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what attack? And what verifiable information did I delete? Can you please provide the diffs? No, this isn't an attack on you. My point is that I did do a pretty detailed search of the Web as I discussed. It would be very difficult to make this article an acceptable Bio. The information just isn't out there in the RS. -- TerryE (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times, Nature, the Chicago Tribune and many other RS cover this individual. If RS coverage is primarily what you would call negative, and from your perspective it appears to be, we can't do much about that. As stated, you are encouraged to add information from reliable sources. An article is never finished. However, we should not attempt to achieve perceived balance by performing original research. Let's stick with the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No my point wasn't that "RS coverage is primarily what you would call negative", it was that only content from the RS coverage that ends up in this article is negative, which is quite different. OR in WP terms is do with the inclusion of the inclusion of controversial content unsupported by RS. Looking across the web, etc. to see what is out there is the normal research that editors might be expected to perform. Quite different and perfectly allowable. I've been thinking about this article. What you have done with this article is clearly an improvement, so I will attempt to go with AGF. I think that we agree that there is a lot of controversy reported in the Press relating to Mikovits following the publishing of the Science paper. However, before this she was largely unknown and unreported. What is known isn't really controversial, so there is nothing in principle stopping us creating a balanced historical summary which covers her career up to the date. We can leave the controversy to the areas it belongs in. I'll have a go at this later today.

Also can you please provide the diffs to show the verifiable information that I have deleted in this article or withdraw this claim. -- TerryE (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Title

Regarding the "citation needed" tag for Mikovits as a technician: Mikovits, who had just received a Bachelors degree, began working for Ruscetti in 1980. I don't recall exactly when she began her PhD, but it wasn't until the late 1980s. This type of position is known as "technician" in US academic science, and I feel we should try to use the correct terminology (e.g., a graduate student is not a "lab cleaner"). Is there language describing a lab worker with a Bachelors degree with which everyone could agree? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The source states, "doctoral research focused on HIV-1 latency under the direction of Francis Ruscetti."[2] Unless there is another source that states differently then use language similar to "doctoral research focused on HIV-1 latency under the direction of Francis Ruscetti." Ward20 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether this position is known as a "technician" as I have participated in the US academia, but I've never heard this usage on the US science podcasts that I listen to. The normal phrase is terms seem to be post-grad, (or post-doc for PhDs) researcher. In the UK and US technician usually means a skilled assistant (someone without a degree and not on a graduate academic career). My first google hit on "lab technician" US Dept of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook, Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians states "Clinical laboratory technologists usually have a bachelor's degree with a major in medical technology or in one of the life sciences; clinical laboratory technicians generally need either an associate degree or a certificate.", so it looks as if Uncle Sam disagrees with this as well. I agree that technician doesn't have quite the same negative connotation as "lab cleaner", but it is still negative in this context. The main difference was that my use was in a talk page to demonstrate that negative descriptions can be unfair. This is somewhat different to introducing one into an article itself without reference. -- TerryE (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikovits worked in Ruscetti's lab for many years before starting her doctoral program. Are you disputing this? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No. But that wasn't my point was it? -- TerryE (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Post-grad" for "technician"? I'm not sure what podcasts you're using for your research on lab titles, but I've worked in the US, and lab workers without PhDs are known as technicians. Some industry or government jobs use different titles, but the generic term is the same. Technician is a matter-of-fact designation and not even remotely negative. Unless, of course, we were applying it to Mikovits in her position today, and we are not.

That said, it's not like I was even trying to stir the hornet's nest; just to give an accurate description. To say she worked as a technician is in any case much less insulting than implying she was working towards her doctorate for well over ten years, as Ward suggests. If there's a better term or description, I'm listening. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly didn't suggest removed "as Ward suggests" from above paragraph as I did no such thing. What source states, "she was working towards her doctorate for well over ten years". What source states that? Ward20 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see that from your perspective technician is not negative, but your own US Dept of Labour Labor does make a distinction, so your view can't be universal in the US, and also the US is only a minority percentage of English speakers. Surely we should be a little sensitive to potential misunderstanding in the rest of the world? -- TerryE (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. Here we are again, having a 30 Years War over a single word, with heated "I didn't say that"s and original research in which TerryE decides I am a US citizen who has my own Department of Labour and that I am furthermore attempting to impose "my" minority views of language on the entire, diverse English-speaking world. It's comical in a way. Mikovits began working for Ruscetti in 1980. She began her doctoral program in the late 1980s. My point is that she was a lab worker and not a grad student prior to that time. Ward's suggestion to replace the current language with language similar to "doctoral research focused on HIV-1 latency under the direction of Francis Ruscetti." would imply that she was working on her doctorate from 1980 until whenever she received it, which would be inaccurate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You just said "I've worked in the US", so my "your own US" was in that context. I don't know where the hell you come from, and I don't care. Most UK and Australian grads doing post-grad research would be very pissed off to be called a "technician", so I asked for a less negative overtones. As to your timeline, that was my earlier point: we don't know because there's been no detailed bio done of Mikovits. Your inference "Mikovits began working for Ruscetti in 1980. She began her doctoral program in the late 1980s." => It's OK to use the word "technician" in the content is what WP classifies as OR. -- TerryE (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) I can't comment on usage other than North American, but to me, technician implies very little either way, other than you're working in a technical capacity of some kind. It's neither positive nor negative, but it could potentially be misleading in that it can just as easily imply semi-skilled labour, so I think it's not the best choice. The wording now is fine, though it might flow better to say that she "worked for Ruscetti [...] while working towards a joint PhD in [...]" if that's actually what she was doing. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Robin. For at least five years and I think more prior to beginning her degree, Mikovits was working for Ruscetti as whatever you want to call the position without offending. As long as that's clear, it doesn't matter to me how we say it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

XMRV: Inaccurate cites

I have modified the below: "Mikovits has garnered criticism from scientists for stating that XMRV "undoubtedly causes some of the symptoms that are associated with" CFS[18][19][20] and for suggesting that XMRV causes a wide variety of medical conditions with incompletely understood aetiology, including Parkinson's disease, autism, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimers and fibromyalgia. She has also stated that XMRV is a communicable infection, "clearly circulating through the population as is our fear and your fear"[15] and has entered the US blood supply.[15]"

to: "Mikovits has garnered criticism from some scientists for stating that XMRV is a communicable infection which is "clearly circulating through the population as is our fear and your fear"[15] Virologist Vincent Racaniello said that saying that "is just inciting fear." [15][17] Mikovits showed slides at a conference which linked XMRV to Parkinson's disease, autism and multiple sclerosis. However, there is no published evidence that XMRV is associated with these diseases.[21][22][23][24][25]"

Please read the cites to see that the original is unsupported by the cites, while the revision is. Cited journalist Trine T. often bends the truth in her articles on ME, but for purposes of this article, I have accepted her reporting at face value here, although I believe some of it to be slanted. Discussion welcomed of course. JustinReilly (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no section regarding additional links to be added to this page; however, I would like to suggest an update be added. There are current articles regarding the criminal case brought against Judy Mikovits by Washoe county NV. I have three links that can be used to edit that page, but as a new member, I would like input as to the proper etiquette in doing so. Below are links to the NYT, Chicago Tribune and a link providing a copy of the court document where the D.A. and assistant D.A. dismissed the case due to lack of evidence.

1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-mikovits-charges-main-20120615,0,7187208.story

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/us/chronic-fatigue-researcher-wont-face-theft-charges.html

3. http://cfidsreport.com/images/Judy%20Mikovits%20Dismissal.pdf - official court document

Edit - also from Science Insider - http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/criminal-charges-dropped-against.html

Thank you for your help. Hidlyn (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You can have a crack at it even though you seem to be new. See Wikipedia:Be bold. If someone disagrees with what you wrote the procedure should then follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Just don't take it personally if there may be changes to your edits and work with other editors to reach a compromise that most editors agree accurately represents what the reference has described. If you have trouble formatting the references just do the best you can and someone will probably come along and help fix them. Best. Ward20 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note on how to do the references – you can add them using the following format, using your last one as an example: <ref>[http://cfidsreport.com/images/Judy%20Mikovits%20Dismissal.pdf Official court document]</ref>. As Ward said, someone (quite probably him or me) may edit the basic form to use a template instead, but that'll get you started. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ward20 and RobinHood70. I will give it a shot. Hidlyn (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! Good job on getting the templates as well. As you can see, I made a couple of minor changes. Just to explain them for future reference: the spacing rules for references can be found here. I also changed the first {{Cite news}} to a {{Cite web}}—it's a bit of a judgement call, but typically, Cite news is used for major news agencies, where Cite web is more for websites, blogs, etc. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judy Mikovits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201034505/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/controversial-cfs-researcher-arr.html?ref=hp to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/controversial-cfs-researcher-arr.html?ref=hp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527114106/http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/llb/mikovits.htm to http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/llb/mikovits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)