I am right now watching various fora and news sources and following twitter (I'm not linking as things are too fluid anyway. If you're not already following it you won't be caught up in time). One of the major reactions from people on the heels of Mikovits' unceremonious departure is surprise (even among some of the kookier people).
All that I'm going to say for the moment is stay-tuned at all of the prominent blogs on the matter as hearts will be broken, science and scientists rejoiced, and Mikovits completely destroyed in the eyes of almost everyone. Even some of the mild-grade kooks in her corner will likely distance themselves.
Edit 1: link to WSJ.
Edit 2: background, and original story by Trine Tsouderos.
Edit 3: there's a lot of speculation running around the intertubez about what is in the wind. What is the shoe that's going to drop(kick). One person so far seems to have it right!
Edit 4: new article by Trine.
Edit 5: might as well throw in Abbie's name as she broke the story about the same slide being used in two places. (also cited by Trine, naturally).
Edit 6: ok, I'm confused by the last article by Trine. *twiddles fingers*
Edit 7: ok, the person who guessed correctly guessed that it has to do with labels being edited. What remains curious though is that Trine's article references it, but doesn't show it. Curious indeed.
Edit 8: more background on Mikovits by @Zenmonkey
Finally. Now here's the goddamned picture I've been fuming the stupid journalist didn't put in her article.
This little darling is the original, unedited gel that was cropped in photoshop to be sent in to the Science paper. So, whoever did that (oh, Mikovits - since she submitted it) knew full bloody fucking well that they were lying. And honestly, editing in photoshop? And using the source file?
Protip, fraudsters: source => copy => save copy => edit copy => save edit => screen capture => then defraud the world. Sheesh.