Re: NIH Study
From: Rita Stanley (rlstanleyNOSPAM_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/11/05
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Previous message: lyme_lighthouse: "[BLINK 01/11/2005] IF YOU ARE NEW TO LYME..."
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Next in thread: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Reply: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Reply: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:29:34 -0800
> autoimmune
>
> I don't see how the exclusion of PCR positives did.
>
> I see der dritte mann's point that POLITICALLY the exclusion looks
> significant.
>
> However it might be scientifically defensible. Klempner had a colorable
> reason though not a persuasive one.
He made an EXCUSE to exclude the PCR pos. He was ready for this. He
presented his reasoning so that no one at the symposium would argue with
him- who would argue against his 'ethics'? No one.Obviously, no one knew the
exact outcome, but, boy, it looked like he stacked the deck in his favor in
more than one way.
Why study infection when what you really want to study is auto-immunity or
immune dysfunction for all that future grant money and carve out a unique
niche? What areas showed a greater potential for him to study in the future
career and money-wise? You set up your study so that you can use it to lead
the way for a lot more lucrative future endeavors. Come on. I was in
research.
Rita
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Previous message: lyme_lighthouse: "[BLINK 01/11/2005] IF YOU ARE NEW TO LYME..."
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Next in thread: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Reply: GregGerber_at_hotmail.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Reply: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: NIH Study"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
