Re: suck out pathogens with a mini-pump?


Frank de Groot wrote:
> <a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1112804411.470453.279650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Not criminal in the legal sense. Criminal as in amoral. Not
criminal as
> > in violating any criminal statute.
>
> When an insurer tells a test manufacturer to make their tests less
reliable
> (less sensitive) "or else", isn't that racketeering?

No that isn't racketeering. Look it up. As you say STFW google.

> > What do the test manufacturers get out of it?
>
> Continued orders from the insurers.
> They are at gunpoint.

Sure frank. Insurance companies are holding test manufacturers at
gunpoint.

Sure thing.

How do you spell PARANOID?

> But the insurers don't choose the labs, the doctors do (with some
> > exceptions but usually it is the doctor who chooses a lab if the
> > insurer requires them to but not a particular lab).
>
> There are only a handful of test manufacturers for all those labs.

And that is part of the conspiracy?

> I had a 3-hour phonecall with a german lab worker who told me that
their WB
> was deliberately made much less sensitive.

Well gee frank. I feel sorry for the german lab worker. I guess with
proof like that you can take your case to court. Maybe you'll be lucky
enough to drawn Judge KathLOON DickINSANE? And win your case.

> Noone ever gave a reason, but they did admit it, only after
questioning.

Whatever frank.

> > Lyme testing is unreliable from all labs.
>
> That's exactly my point.

No. Your point was that KathLOON was right and this was RICO. Check the
message I was responding to. THe one that YOU wrote. You said it is
criminal and is racketeering and is RICO and that KathLOON freshly
ensconced right back in the psychiatric ward of the prison is right.

Go plead your case to her.

> Those tests are *deliberately* inaccurate.

See you're not even making as good a point as KathLOON. Her point is
that the STANDARD FOR INTERPRETATION was the fraud. And though it isn't
legally a fraud, it pretty much is scientifically. So is the two step
testing method. Of course, it is as far from there to being a RICO case
as the earth is from Pluto. Or alpha centauri.

> > It isn't a conspiracy that the tests suck. Some things are hard to
test
> > for accurately.
>
> Bull***.

Now THAT'S a persuasive argument! Let me respond: bull*** to the
infinity power plus 1. So I have out-persuaded you and won the
argument.

> I tested positive. Then I needed to be re-tested. Negative.

Oh well with proof like that you might even win in front of Judge Lisa!

Did you ever consider that there are many reasons for such results? The
antibody response varies over time? With treatment? That there is and
always has been great variability in test results, results aren't
easily reproduced? Both inter and intra laboratory variability?

Serologic tests for Lyme disease. Interlaboratory variability [see
comments]
http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/abstract.nsf/8c703fae46ce57c28525670a0009ab7e/7265a8f7aa0a5ad58525650300053bc8?OpenDocument

Title: Serologic tests for Lyme disease. Interlaboratory variability
[see comments]
Authors: Luger SW, Krauss E
Source: Arch Intern Med 1990 Apr;150(4):761-3
Organization: Department of Pathology, University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School,
Piscataway.

Abstract:
The serologic test for the detection of antibodies to Borrelia
burgdorferi is the most frequently used laboratory method for the
diagnosis of Lyme disease. However, the insensitivity of the assays and
the interlaboratory variability are frequent problems. To determine the
extent of this variability, one aliquot of serum from each of nine
patients with a history of Lyme disease was sent to nine reference
laboratories, including national, university, state, and local hospital
laboratories. A second aliquot of the original serum was submitted 2
weeks later. Wide variability among laboratories was observed, ranging
from a university laboratory that detected antibody to B burgdorferi
(IgG or IgM) in 18 of 18 specimens, to a state laboratory that detected
antibody in only 8 of 18 specimens. Detection of IgM specific
antibodies showed similar variability (range, 2 to 10 of 18). There
were eight instances of a fourfold or greater change in titer between
the aliquots sent 2 weeks apart, although only three of these were an
increase in titer. These results indicate the need for standardization
of the assays and the availability of national reference material. It
is recommended that the results of serologic testing should not be
relied on as the sole criteria in making the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

Keywords:
Antibodies, Bacterial, ANALYSIS, Borrelia burgdorferi, IMMUNOLOGY,
Comparative Study, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, STANDARDS,
Fluorescent Antibody Technique, STANDARDS, Human, Laboratories,
STANDARDS, Lyme Disease, DIAGNOSIS, Reproducibility of Results,
Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language: Eng

Unique ID: 90225915

> The lab technician didn't trust it and decided to "develop" the WB
longer.
> Presto, positive.

And your point is? How does that prove racketeering and RICO (which
requires more than a single act of racketeering FYI).

> She called the manufacturer, who told her: "We decreased the
sensitivity of
> the development fluid".

Whatever.

.