Strange, apparently they only blinded themselves for two western blots that didn't even deserve a place in the main paper. I have found this is an <i>extremely</i> common issue with virology studies:<p>>"The screening of two subsets of compounds for antiviral activity (Supplementary Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 4b) was performed in a blinded manner, whereas all other experiments were performed in a nonblinded manner."
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nm/index.html</a><p>Also, I searched for the virus strain they used and the first thing I clicked on claimed it has issues with relevance in vivo:<p>>"Anyone who is using viruses termed ZIKV MR766 needs to carefully examine the sequence composition of their stocks. Multiple viruses all termed MR766 may have different sequences and biological properties.In the case of the MR766 we are using in our studies, there is a deletion in the challenge stock that is strongly selected against quickly in vivo."
<a href="https://zika.labkey.com/wiki/OConnor/ZIKV-002/page.view?name=17301_mr766_challenge_comparison" rel="nofollow">https://zika.labkey.com/wiki/OConnor/ZIKV-002/page.view?name...</a>