Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Apr 2005 09:07:52 -0700
GregGerber wrote:
> "Derdritteman, you are wrong. The case definition was for
surveillance,
> but the serological standard voted on at Dearborn was for both
> surveillance (from CDC) and also diagnosis. It was enfranchised as
the
> new serological standard to be used with diagnosis --and with that
> status, almost all commercial labs stopped reporting OspsA and B. If
> the bands are not counted in any commercial lab for any doctor doing
> diagnosis, how can you insist that the standard is just for
> surveillance. Most peer review on diagnosis also defers to the two
tier
> and the banding pattern voted in at dearborn. IN FACT, the dearborn
> standard was approved as the serology standard for the vaccine trials
> EVEN BEFORE the Dearborn meeting. Derdritteman, you are seriously
> misinformed.
>
> Look, the serostandard was enfranchised for surveillance at the
> Dearborn meeting BUT it was also approved for diagnosis in the
vaccine
> trials before that and was elevated to the diagnostic standard for
> patients by scientists writing in the peer review.
>
> It is currently part of the case definition for surveillance AND the
> recommended standard for serology in almost all diagnostic guidelines
> except the ones put out by ilads". gg
My understanding...you can tell me where I have gone wrong...is that
there is NO "CDC diagnostic" standard per se.
There is the CDC case definition which, as it has stressed multiple
times is NOT suitable for diagnostic purposes.
The standard is also used for the qualification of research
subjects...to qualify those participants under a uniform standard.
The CDC criteria for surveillance are used as Steere puts it "usually"
as a diagnostic tool...by analysing the Western Blot according to the
surveillance standard.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: GregGerber
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- References:
- More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: Greatcod
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: derdrittemann2003
- Re: More on Klempner's deceptiveness
- From: GregGerber
- 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
|