Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Apr 2005 18:53:33 -0700
Greatcod wrote:
> My recall (and I emphasize "my", I am not speaking for anyone else)
is
> that prior to the begining of the study, those whose
> CSF PCR'd positive would be acknowledged to have neuroborreliosis,
and
> would be referred to their own doctors for IV treatment.
> I had no sense that blood would be PCR'd, nor synovial fluid...
> Again, in my recall, the dispute around Western Blots in 1999 and
> before was around the numbers and interpretation of the banding. It
was
> a given that the Dearborne WB standards indicated ongoing infection;
> the anti-Steere's argued that as few as one or two bands signifed
> infection, especially if they were Bb specific: the Steere's insisted
> on meeting the Dearborne criteria to justify treatment.
> What I am argueing here is that Klempner was purposefully deceptive
> about the impact of his study on the orthodoxy of
> Western Blot interpretation thru the 90's....it clearly was major,
and
> embarassing to Allen.
And, if I am understanding what you are saying...my understanding is
that Klempner was supposed to use the Dearborn criteria in selecting
subjects for his trials...(in other words, a subject should have been
able to show the 5 of 10 bands for inclusion).
That is the purpose for which they were properly intended.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- References:
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Prev by Date: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Next by Date: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Next by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|