Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter
derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Antibotics"
- Previous message: Greatcod: "Re: Sex as a weapon- What's so new about that?"
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Next in thread: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Reply: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Jan 2005 13:03:51 -0800
A.W.:
(I am having trouble again replying to specific points...as I am not
being allowed the option of editing text)...
Two thoughts:
Yes, if I understand correctly, the PCR positive issue is important to
me, at least, NOT becasue of any substantive impact it may have had (or
not)...but for what it may suggest about the "state of mind" of the
study designers...
...and I think that it is entirely possible, if not probable...that
this really shows clearly how the study was setup to demonstrate
"autoimunity", exactly.
BUT...having said that, I think you have to keep in mind that this is
entirely conceivable within the framework of "academic bias"...and is
not an indication of any "fraud" or deliberately deceptive
conduct...and that it is critical to keep those concepts separate.(At
least without very, VERY specific "proof"..."smoking gun" stuff).
In other words, separate out the PCRs because they are actually
carrying active infection...whereas we "know" that the others are
autoimmune cases...and inclusion will simply lead to erroneous and
misleading results...there may be no intent to consciously
deceive...and I personally doubt it...HIGHLY. (I also doubt that any
attempts to pursue this through FOIA will lead exactly nowhere).
Also: I would urge everyone to consider that although the LDF language
was NOT a "law"...if handled properly, followed-up on through Committee
hearings...the failure of NIH to follow Congressional directives could,
in theory, have some impact.The problem was, as you point out...in
claiming an inordinately enthusiastic interpretation of what had been
"achieved"...AND...in NOT following up properly.
I also, am learning quite a bit here, but only as to "what is wrong
with this picture". Not really interested in the "blame game",
here...but some of that is inseparable and the active participants
haven't exactly helped themselves, here. And...you have to ask
yourself...yes, hindsight is 20/20...but were these outcomes
"forseeable" at the time...and I would suggest that, yes, some of the
consequences were surely anticipated by some.
I also will be interested to see what Greg is talking about...but I
would suggest that if it is this difficult to retrieve...uhhh...? You
have to have some degree of "notice".
(ALSO: I am not enjoying the new format, as you seem to be...I, for
instance, saw something the other day...imbedded in one of these
quotations...about Brorson saying that cystic forms would NOT respond
to PCR...and that seemed interesting in light of what we are
considering...
...and now...where in the hell did that go? Can't bleeping find it...)
I can see fine after the damn thing is posted...with browser set high
as Frank suggested...but the composition size print sucks donkeys.
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Antibotics"
- Previous message: Greatcod: "Re: Sex as a weapon- What's so new about that?"
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Next in thread: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Reply: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
