lansbergen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,512
Yes, that seems to me the most interesting thinjg in this letter...The Nijmegen paper publiched in the BMJ was rejected by the Lancet.
Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab. Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding
Translation our technique could not detect XMRV even it existed in a positive control.As we THOUGHT that our techniques were excellent it could not have been a problem with our techniques. THAT IS AN INTERESTING VERSION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING.He could have thrived in psychiatry!
Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab. Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding
And they were right to do so.
Thanks Gerwyn.
Where did that information come from Gerwyn and is it OK to repost?
Not really notable if your methodology is the problem."Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab."
Robustness? That paper?? I suppose the Lancet disagreed..."Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding before having settled the reason for the discrepancy."
And the WPI says they never heard back from the Dutch team. I don't see any sample sharing between any of these labs in the near future..."To solve the discrepancy, we proposed to exchange cohorts on February 9. Unfortunately, to date we have not received any response."
Also of note that he adresses Annette Whittemore as Dr. Whittemore. This man is even unaware as to whom he is adressing.
He knows exactly that she is not a Doctor. Addressing her as such is a way of dressing her down.
At the moment you reported your findings on the Nijmegen samples, our paper was under consideration of the BMJ (after being rejected after a 5-week review process by the Lancet).
Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding before having settled the reason for the discrepancy.
Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.
Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:
Am I wrong about this?
And did their technique really detect a positive sample sent to them by the WPI? Is that true??
And was that reported in their paper?
Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.
Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:
Am I wrong about this?
Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.
Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:
Am I wrong about this?