|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
dumbass,
the 'stupidity' commnt is attributed to rogge. -Amit |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Stuff at Ray's MTBike Park! | Scott | Mountain Biking | 30 | December 18th 04 02:56 AM |
Tyler in long BBC interview | David George | Racing | 0 | November 29th 04 10:29 AM |
Used stuff at shops? | Matt J | General | 20 | December 9th 03 09:15 PM |
best bike stuff in San Francisco? | MontanaBiker | General | 5 | December 6th 03 03:53 AM |
Potential "Nightline" topic (Tyler Hamilton) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | Racing | 1 | August 13th 03 06:02 PM |