Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: "Greatcod" <Greatcod@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Apr 2005 19:58:17 -0700
Ok, look at this at the time the participants are being selected. They
need to WB 5 bands; that would indicate continuing infection by
everyone's standards (especially given that they had rashed, and were
still sick puppies)....I am trying to say that at that point in time,
everyone took Klempner's entry criteria to signal continuing infection.
Actually, no one had any sense of his PCR results
until after the study was published.
I heard the guy talk for an hour and a half, about Lyme and his study.
No one questioned, or had the slightest impression, that he was going
to give IV antibiotics to people who were free of infection. We would
have thought that crazy, absolutely pointless .
Our concerns were over lenght of treatment, and the exclusion of very
sick people who didn't WB 5 bands, as well as objective measures of
infection and improvement, like SPECT scans, and the statistical
correction for cycling.
.
- 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
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Prev by Date: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Next by Date: Re: Do antibiotics ever eradicate Borrelia burgdoferi?
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Next by thread: Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|