Guest guest Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 I havent read the study itself. In the post-publication correspondance printed in NEJM, I believe (not certain) the study authors state that they had planned to exclude PCR-positive subjects, but that in fact they *had no* PCR-positives anyway in the entire ~1000 potential subjects screened... go figure. I dont know how these potential subjects were recruited or whether every one of them was PCR'd, nor do I know much about the sensitivity of PCR in borreliosis (Barb?)... nor would I assume that the PCR is standardized (WBs certainly are not). It does strike me as odd that anyone can find large numbers of patients to be PCR-neg when AW reports visualizing borrelial forms very consistently in the blood of almost everyone conforming to CFS. I dont know much about PCR. > Hi , > > Sorry. I got Donta and Klempner confused in my last post. I think > Klempner was the one who excluded patients who were PCR positive, but > it has been a long time since I read the full paper. Do you remember > if he did that? > > Sue , > Upstate New York Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.