More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: "Greatcod" <Greatcod@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Apr 2005 11:21:56 -0700
I have been thinking about this for a while now, and am pretty sure I
am correct. Those solicited for participation in the study
had to meet criteria of previous infection and treatment. Those who did
were Western Blotted, and only those whose Western Blots
indicated ongoing infection (by the standards then in use, Dearborne, I
guess) were admitted to the study. I remember Klempner being asked why
the bar was being set so high. He responded that it would make the
study "more scientific".
My point is that before the Klempner study was published, anyone who
Western Blotted that way would have been considered still infectd and
Which is to say that we all believed that it was a study of chronic
infection, and that the WB criteria confirmed that.
No mention is made in the published study of this, and I don't believe
that the study makes any comment on how it renders WBs
useless after a round of antibiotic treatment.
I suggest this all means Klempner has been deliberatly deceptive, and
not just to "Lyme Activists".
- Prev by Date: Re: Going on 48 Hours (shhhhhh)
- Next by Date: Re: Do antibiotics ever eradicate Borrelia burgdoferi?
- Previous by thread: Bartonella frequent convulsive seizures and inter-critical drowsiness.
- Next by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness