Yes, there is. The paper regarding the LTT Elispot has been shown to you repeatedly. But you insist that researchers MUST engage in blinding themselves even when there is no risk of non-deliberate bias, so nothing will convince you.
But perhaps you can explain to me the usefulness of blinding, when bias by the patients is not a factor and unconscious bias by researchers is also not possible? Frankly you just seem to have created a ridiculous standard so that you can continue to adamantly maintain that you are right. That is not conducive to any discussion.
I don't think that blinding needs to be the be all and end all, but I do think it's useful for helping avoid unforseen problems with things like how samples are stored and treated, over-enthusiastic pursuit of a hypothesis, etc. Blinding as early as possible in the process lets us worry less about the specifics of the process and I don't see why one would not do it as a part of one's assessment procedure. I can't remember the details of the paper on the LTT Elispot which you cited, but I think it was the one that Jonathan Edwards was not impressed by either. I'm afraid that I really can't remember if we have any evidence on the Elispot's results either, eg: are a significant percentage of people with CFS symptoms getting positive results on Elispot but not mainstream testing?
I'm sure that at some point their will be good evidence for a new and improved way of testing for Lyme. I am not insisting that this will not happen, or that emergence of this evidence would mean that I was wrong about something, I'm just saying that when this claim is made it should be supported by good quality evidence.
Except that they're doing the SAME testing as the other labs. The reason they are more reliable is because they use more strains of Bb and better gel materials to conduct their testing - not because of inherent differences in testing methodology.
They also provide a more logical assessment of the results than the CDC's interpretation which was never meant to be used for diagnostic purposes.
Right, but they're not just trying to produce the same results as other labs. In that way they are attempting to produce different results which they claim are most useful and reliable. I thin that they should produce evidence to support their claim.
IT'S THE SAME TEST!!! So if you say "mainstream" testing has some value, then the testing done by IgeneX has that same value plus the value they add by increasing the number of strains and the quality of the testing materials.
If it's producing different results, it's not the same test. Increasing the numbers of strains and changing the testing materials should be assumed to lead to a more useful test if we do not have evidence that this is the case.
Well, OK, I'll define science for you, if necessary.
Science is a system of acquiring knowledge in a systematic and organized way using the scientific method. Wikipedia defines the scientific method as "a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." (emphasis mine)
So then it has nothing to do with any assumption that IgeneX's test is more reliable than it was in 2001?
You seemed to imply it did, and so I assumed you were referring to 'science' as something other than an abstract process.
It was a first generation test. It hasn't been in use since 2001.
Science progresses.
What is claimed to be, and commonly thought to be, 'science' does not always progress, and can make mistakes, mislead and encourage the mistreatment of people.[/QUOTE]
