More damning Tyler stuff

psycholist wrote:

[snip]

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

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist wrote:

[snip]

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

"More" was quantitative, not qualitative.

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From Velonews.com today:

Pound has frequently argued that the test results from the Vuelta
underscore the positive from Athens.
"He got to keep his medal, but somewhere in that whole process, they get
the word out that he needs to be tested at the Vuelta... and that test
showed the same stuff as did the A sample from Athens," he said. "So yes,
yes his medal is tainted. He doesn't deserve to have a gold medal. The
tests show that. As I said, he dodged a bullet."

Pound's position was echoed by IOC president Jacques Rogge.

Rogge told the Reuters news service on Monday that he regretted the
"technicality" that allowed Hamilton to keep his gold medal.

"The stupidity of a lab employee made it impossible to punish the
American, but it does not question the validity of the test," Rogge said.
"Nobody will regard him as the time trial Olympic champion in Athens."

Hmm, all this new information is just mind boggling.

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.

The UCI worned TH way before the Velta or the Olympics. He had a chance
to go away quietly. Now he's a joke. End of story

dumbass,

that is another thing TH has been silent on. where is the early warning
rumour from ? depending on your take, it makes him look more or less
guilty.

"amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dumbass,

that is another thing TH has been silent on. where is the early warning
rumour from ? depending on your take, it makes him look more or less
guilty.

IIRC, that was revealed by the head of the UCI medical commission.

http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/

Tom Kunich said:

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.

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. The three were found not to have received any recent transfusions.

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.

This type of FACS testing has also been around a long time and is very accurate and very scientifically valid.

dumbass,

the 'stupidity' commnt is attributed to rogge.

-Amit

patch70 said:

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.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

dumbass,

the 'stupidity' commnt is attributed to rogge.

-Amit

Ewoud Dronkert said:

patch70 said:

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 said:

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 said:

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 said:

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.

Tom said:

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 said:

Robert Chung said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.