More damning Tyler stuff

dumbass,

the 'stupidity' commnt is attributed to rogge.

-Amit

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:36:07 +1100, patch70 wrote:
Tom, in what way is the scientific validity "unproven"?

In the article published in 'Transfusion Medicine' about it, 25 people
were tested. There were 22 true positives and 3 true negatives.

Even without false tests, that leaves the occurrence of false positives
much more uncertain than false negatives.

Doesn't look like a randomly-chosen sample, does it?

Robert Chung Wrote:
Doesn't look like a randomly-chosen sample, does it?

Once again, that is the only published data that we have access to. It
has been done on plenty of others that are not published. Either way,
it was still 100% accurate in that small sample.


--
patch70

patch70 wrote:
Once again, that is the only published data that we have access to. It
has been done on plenty of others that are not published. Either way,
it was still 100% accurate in that small sample.

So what you're saying is, the only published results show that on a sample
of three people who were known not to have received a transfusion, all
three tested negative. I think I would agree that this is a small sample.

patch70 Dec 20, 7:36 pm:

"Tom, in what way is the scientific validity "unproven"?"

1) The testing was done without ANY controls.
2) Even though there were only a small number of test subjects who were
all known to be positive, there was one negative and one questionable
returned by the test.
3) WADA has refused to release the actual procedures for review by the
legal teams of the riders who have been proclaimed positive.

All of these smack of questionable science.

"The test has been done on many hundreds (at least). Just because their
results aren't published doesn't mean they are not available to the
people that need to know about them."

You don't seem to grasp the fact that without proper controls and
without sufficient testing the validity of the tests are NOT confirmed.
What if some component of a legal and harmless drug bind with the
antigen sites and then cross connect with the testing agents?

This testing hasn't passed the level that would be necessary for me to
put a plastic probe tip on the market as a medical device and you want
to use it to ruin people's careers?

Robert Chung Wrote:
So what you're saying is, the only published results show that on a
sample of three people who were known not to have received a
transfusion, all three tested negative. I think I would agree that this
is a small sample.

Yes, the published sample of 22 true positives and 3 true negatives and
no false positives or false negatives is a small sample. However, that
is all that is published that you & I have access to!!!!

Also this same testing procedure (FACS) is used all over the world, is
quite simple & is extremely accurate. It can tell you within minutes
the number of stem cells harvested from a lymphoma patient.


--
patch70

Tom Wrote:

1) The testing was done without ANY controls.
2) Even though there were only a small number of test subjects who
were
all known to be positive, there was one negative and one questionable
returned by the test.
3) WADA has refused to release the actual procedures for review by the
legal teams of the riders who have been proclaimed positive.

All of these smack of questionable science.

"The test has been done on many hundreds (at least). Just because
their
results aren't published doesn't mean they are not available to the
people that need to know about them."

You don't seem to grasp the fact that without proper controls and
without sufficient testing the validity of the tests are NOT
confirmed.
What if some component of a legal and harmless drug bind with the
antigen sites and then cross connect with the testing agents?

This testing hasn't passed the level that would be necessary for me to
put a plastic probe tip on the market as a medical device and you want
to use it to ruin people's careers?

Actually there were three negative controls (inadvertently) and 22
positive controls.

You say that there hasn't been sufficient testing. However, you & I
don't know that. To get a drug passed by the FDA, a drug company has to
produce results from all phases of testing the drug. The vast majority
of these are not published and are not widely available but the FDA
accepts these results to claim a drug is safe. Same situation with this
test - many others have been tested, the results would have been shown
to WADA, IOC etc who have then decided that there is validity in the
test.

What evidence can you show me of any product - legal or otherwise -
binding to red cells? None. What evidence can you show me of any
product - legal or otherwise - sharing antigenicity with red cell
antigens? None. The chance of either of these happening is millions to
one. The chance of both of these happening and that they only bind to a
small % of red cells (to give a positive result) and that the only two
people for whom this leads to positive test results being on the same
team is about infinity to one!

Given the widespread use of FACS and the high accuracy of it, I will be
very, very surprised if both Tyler & Santi are innocent of homologous
transfusions. Obviously we'll probably never know the truth (unless
they confess maybe). Maybe it was an accidental switch of autologous
blood but then they'd have to be the same blood type to survive this
without at least one of them getting very sick. Regardless, the only
way I see them being found innocent is on a technicality.


--
patch70

patch70 wrote:
Robert Chung Wrote:
So what you're saying is, the only published results show that on a
sample of three people who were known not to have received a
transfusion, all three tested negative. I think I would agree that this
is a small sample.

Yes, the published sample of 22 true positives and 3 true negatives and
no false positives or false negatives is a small sample. However, that
is all that is published that you & I have access to!!!!

Hmmm. Right here in my desk all of this unpublished data that shows that
the moon is made of green cheese.

Also this same testing procedure (FACS) is used all over the world, is
quite simple & is extremely accurate. It can tell you within minutes
the number of stem cells harvested from a lymphoma patient.

How do you know it's extremely accurate? Oh, that's right: unpublished
data that you don't have access to.

Qoute = Hmmm. Right here in my desk all of this unpublished data that
shows that the moon is made of green cheese.

If you have secret evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, good
for you. But that evidence in your desk does not convince anyone esle.
However, if you can show that to a panel of scientific experts who
believe you and are willing to tell the world that you are correct,
then I might start to believe it even before you have published your
findings. Especially if it was already well established that multiple
other moons are made of similar material. (I am sure this analogy will
be too hard for you to comprehend but you are going to believe Tyler
regardless because he speaks English and seems like a nice guy).

Quote = How do you know it's extremely accurate? Oh, that's right:
unpublished data that you don't have access to.

No - I have worked as a haematology resident and fellow for about 6
months and have seen & used FACS technology. It is extremely useful in
that line of work and very reliable. Plus, virtually the same test has
been used on pregnant women to detect fetal haemorrhages. Yes, with
excellent accuracy.


--
patch70

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:22:59 +0100, Robert Chung
wrote:

patch70 wrote:
Robert Chung Wrote:
So what you're saying is, the only published results show that on a
sample of three people who were known not to have received a
transfusion, all three tested negative. I think I would agree that this
is a small sample.

Yes, the published sample of 22 true positives and 3 true negatives and
no false positives or false negatives is a small sample. However, that
is all that is published that you & I have access to!!!!

Hmmm. Right here in my desk all of this unpublished data that shows that
the moon is made of green cheese.

Also this same testing procedure (FACS) is used all over the world, is
quite simple & is extremely accurate. It can tell you within minutes
the number of stem cells harvested from a lymphoma patient.

How do you know it's extremely accurate? Oh, that's right: unpublished
data that you don't have access to.



So, one test of a tiny amount of people means that the test is extremely
accurate? Sort of like Celebrex is a great drug because of all the
testing they did, until they did that new testing, that is.

--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply