Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: "a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx" <a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Apr 2005 17:22:44 -0700
Greatcod wrote:
> 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
> been retreated.
> 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".
However, this certainly belies the claim that PCR positives were
screened out because they were clearly infected. By accpeting WB
positives but ruling out PCR positives because it would be "unethical"
to deny treatment to those currently infected, Klempner, implicitly was
saying that the WB postives were NOT currently infected./
Or, there was some other reason, other than the stated reason, for
screening out PCR positives.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: eugeneshapiroisapig
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- References:
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Prev by Date: Re: Going on 48 Hours (shhhhhh)
- Next by Date: Re: Going on 48 Hours (shhhhhh)
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Next by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading