More damning Tyler stuff

Bob, regarding celebrex, many doctors could have told you it was dodgey
long ago. It contains a big sulphur moiety so is out for anyone with
sulphur allergies. A high % of people that took it were already on
aspirin so that they lost any benefit in terms of reduced stomach
ulcers. (i.e. if you take aspirin & celebrex, the rate of ulcers is the
same as people who take the normal non-steroidal anti-inflammatories.)
It is also likely from its mechanism of action that an increased
clotting tendency is likely.

Celebrex (& vioxx) got to be big sellers through successful marketing.
This allowed the drug companies to make big money before they released
the results of later studies. Nobody will make any money from this test
for homologous transfusions as it is a re-hash of other tests and is
nothing new.

Bob M Wrote:
So, one test of a tiny amount of people means that the test is extremely
accurate?

As I have said many times, it will not be accepted on a single
publication of a sample of 25!!! There will be other studies that
confirm its accuracy that are yet to be published. How else could they
get a scientific panel to accept it?

And agin, it is essentially not a new test! It has been used in other
guises for ages!!!


--
patch70

"patch70" wrote in message
news

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

This wasn't evident in the several articles I've read but I'll take your
word for it since I didn't see the complete original study, only a summary.

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.

Now remember that I've worked for boitech pharmaceutical companies and I'll
tell you that I've been absolutely horrified at some of the "testing"
procedures which wouldn't, in my opinion, pass an 11th grade science class.
So there is generally a GOOD reason that drug companies don't publish the
majority of their testing. It's because most of it is questionable and they
don't want questions.

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.

I'll agree that seems true but without carefully controlled testing we
cannot be sure. I think that we've both agreed that it is highly suspicious
that there have been claims that blood packing has been widespread yet only
TWO men on the same team have shown positive.

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!

Or unity. That's the problem with medical statistics. Everything is
impossible until we understand it and then it makes sense.

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.

We COULD know the truth but apparently we aren't going to be informed by
WADA some details that might point in the right direction. Such as
hematocrit, what the antigens used in testing were and what the actual count
was.

patch70 wrote:

Tom Wrote:



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.

--
patch70

Most non-clinical drug safety data is available in the Physician's Desk
Reference (PDR). As for clinical safety trials of a drug, those really
aren't quite as good as the non-clinical trials because they never take
clinical subjects to a max dosage of any kind. So most clinical trials
show no effects and are relatively useless for detecting harmful effects.

Clinical trials are primary used for detecting adverses events such as mild
side-effects, but not things like cancer, heart problems, etc.

Phil

Phil Wrote:
Most non-clinical drug safety data is available in the Physician's Desk
Reference (PDR). As for clinical safety trials of a drug, those
really
aren't quite as good as the non-clinical trials because they never
take
clinical subjects to a max dosage of any kind. So most clinical
trials
show no effects and are relatively useless for detecting harmful
effects.

Clinical trials are primary used for detecting adverses events such as
mild
side-effects, but not things like cancer, heart problems, etc.

Phil

That depends on what phase the trials are.
Phase 1 = dose range & side effects
Phase 2 = does it have a clinical effect (& any new side effects)?
Phase 3 = How does it compare to a currently available treatment, both
in terms of effectiveness and rate of side effects?
Post marketing trial (Phase 4) = any other side effects that had been
missed?


--
patch70

"psycholist" wrote in message
...
"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
psycholist wrote:

[snip]

Why is this more damning than what we've already heard?


"More" was quantitative, not qualitative.

Meaning what - that quoting the *opinions* of two people is somehow more
damning than quoting the opinion of just one??

Andy Coggan

Tom Kunich wrote:

Pound saying that his test, the scientific validity of which is unproven,
proved that Hamilton is guilty.

He then tells us that the technician who performed the tests, didn't find a
positive and then FOLLOWED PROCEDURE, was "stupid". Personally I think that
the technician should file a law suit against Pound for slander.

It's becoming more and more clear that the IOC had a "hit-list" of
athletes who were strongly suspected of doping. It's not out of the
bounds of possibility that they had a tip-off that he was blood packing,
knew the test would show it up and were disappointed when it wasn't
conclusive.

If that is the scenario and it goes to CAS appeal, and the UCI has the
same evidence, be ready for an interesting January. My prediction is
that Tyler will quietly retire.

patch70 wrote:
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.

(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).

Perhaps this will be too hard for you to comprehend, but only someone who
jumps to conclusions, ignores evidence, and has a poor grasp of
statistical and clinical methods would think that I believe Tyler
Hamilton. I haven't been talking about Hamilton: I've been talking about
whether the application of this test is infallible. Of course I believe
that FACS is extremely useful. Hammers are extremely useful but that
doesn't mean everything built with one is reliable. True positives don't
tell you anything about the rate of false positives, so for the purpose of
determining the false positive rate the only relevant data are the three
known negatives. Really, you spent six months as a hematology resident?
That makes your failure to understand research methodology pretty
alarming, regardless of whether you write English and seem like a pretty
nice guy.

psycholist wrote:
"More" was quantitative, not qualitative.

Andy Coggan wrote:
Meaning what - that quoting the *opinions* of two people is somehow more
damning than quoting the opinion of just one??

Recent tests in the US have confirmed that if you repeat something often
enough it becomes true. Just ask Time's man of the year.

Donald Munro wrote:
psycholist wrote:
"More" was quantitative, not qualitative.

Andy Coggan wrote:
Meaning what - that quoting the *opinions* of two people is somehow
more damning than quoting the opinion of just one??

Recent tests in the US have confirmed that if you repeat something often
enough it becomes true. Just ask Time's man of the year.

How many times do you think he'll have to repeat "this doesn't look gay at
all"?
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...2911462546.jpg