Perhaps docdov is related to another famous unlice
Post# of 30065
Posted On: 11/16/2014 3:42:06 PM
Perhaps docdov is related to another famous unlicensed physician we all know...
It seems like the questions asked were not to solicit answers, but to plant seeds of doubt.
Any diagnostic being developed to identify any disease faces the same question... how do you identify those afflicted with the disease in order to determine if your diagnostic test is accurate? It's the classic Chicken or The Egg conundrum. I may not be knowledgeable to know exactly how this is done, but I suspect it involves relying on the specific biomarker(s) in question, and the testing is focusing on the biomarker presence rather than an initial valid diagnosis of the disease.
I had a similar problem in a lab where I was determining lower levels of detection for an instrument. I needed 3 Hydrogen gas standards. I had only 2, so I mixed the 2 standards I had to create a new standard, but I didn't know the composition of the 3rd standard, only that it was somewhere between the other two. I did this because in the statistical analysis the actual concentration of the standards wasn't required to be known. I was only using mean and standard deviation in the calculations for LLD.
So while I might not be an expert in the analytical methods involved in the testing of LymPro, I understand that the questions raised by docdov are not necessarily relevant. Those working on the testing understand what they're doing, and their work will be published for peer review. I trust if there's any problem with how they did the testing, it will be readily discovered by the scientific and medical research community. We didn't hire all of these experts in their fields for show. They're guiding the LymPro testing. They know what they're doing, even if we don't understand all the specifics.
It seems like the questions asked were not to solicit answers, but to plant seeds of doubt.
Any diagnostic being developed to identify any disease faces the same question... how do you identify those afflicted with the disease in order to determine if your diagnostic test is accurate? It's the classic Chicken or The Egg conundrum. I may not be knowledgeable to know exactly how this is done, but I suspect it involves relying on the specific biomarker(s) in question, and the testing is focusing on the biomarker presence rather than an initial valid diagnosis of the disease.
I had a similar problem in a lab where I was determining lower levels of detection for an instrument. I needed 3 Hydrogen gas standards. I had only 2, so I mixed the 2 standards I had to create a new standard, but I didn't know the composition of the 3rd standard, only that it was somewhere between the other two. I did this because in the statistical analysis the actual concentration of the standards wasn't required to be known. I was only using mean and standard deviation in the calculations for LLD.
So while I might not be an expert in the analytical methods involved in the testing of LymPro, I understand that the questions raised by docdov are not necessarily relevant. Those working on the testing understand what they're doing, and their work will be published for peer review. I trust if there's any problem with how they did the testing, it will be readily discovered by the scientific and medical research community. We didn't hire all of these experts in their fields for show. They're guiding the LymPro testing. They know what they're doing, even if we don't understand all the specifics.
(0)
(0)