I would be more worried about false-positives with patient samples (non-specific binding), than false negatives.Well, we know that XMRV is not a pathogen, but that would have been another red flag back in October 2009. Well I guess, when you fabricate such a study, you can't think of everything…
Which brings me to another point about the Reno study. They keep saying that 4% of their healthy controls are XMRV positive.
No, they are PCR positive.
0% of their healthy controls had anti-XMRV antibodies. That means 100% of their XMRV(+) healthy controls hadnt seroconverted (not likely), or their PCR reagents have at least a 4% false-positive rate.
None of the healthy controls met HIV-1s standard of 'positive'.
Which still makes me wonder where all the asymptomatic carriers are.
:-O
Pages
▼
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are most welcome! But please:
- No SPAM whatsoever, no supplements, no pharmaceuticals, no herbs or any other advertisements
- Absolutely no quack-doctors pushing their quack-BS websites (and if you are a quack, I will call you out)
- Be critical if you want to, but try to be coherent
Comments are moderated, because I am tired of Gerwyn-V99-The-Idiot and his moronic sockpuppets, and tired of the story of the two dogs, but I will try to publish everything else.
If you are not Gerwyn (and want to tell me something other than the story of the two dogs), then relax and write something! :-)