More brilliant logic from the researchers:
'In BC, Lyme disease prevalence in the tested population is well below 1%' So obviously these can't be actual positives, because we know that Lyme is very uncommon in BC!
I'm going through the paper now. It actually seems more substantial than the abstract suggested - for example they used the CC rather than Fukuda.
'In BC, Lyme disease prevalence in the tested population is well below 1%' So obviously these can't be actual positives, because we know that Lyme is very uncommon in BC!
I'm going through the paper now. It actually seems more substantial than the abstract suggested - for example they used the CC rather than Fukuda.