At 01:41 AM 10/28/94 GMT, una.smith at yale.edu wrote:
>bcapstone at aol.com (BCapstone) writes: [deleted]
>>>I'm getting very tired of this. Numerous people have offered
>advice and appropriate caveats, and BCapstone has taken the
>suggestions he likes as derived truth, while shouting down the
>critical comments over and over again at great length. That
>looks like fanatacism, not medicine, and it certainly isn't
>science.
>>For instance, the suggestion that PCR might be useful must be
>tempered with the caveat that PCR is extremely sensitive to
>contaminants. Sure, an unknown rod can perhaps be isolated
>using optical tweezers (sheesh!), and PCR run. But what are
>the odds that the *entire process* can be performed not only
>under perfectly sterile conditions, but also in the complete
>absense of exogenous DNA. Even when bacteria can be cultured
>in great abundance, contamination is still a serious problem.
>This is especially problematic when the desired DNA is from
>a COMPLETE UNKNOWN. By what twisted logic will you decide if
>a PCR product belongs to the unknown and not a contaminant?
>Is this procedure amenable to BCapstone's stated goal of the
>moment; rapid, accurate diagnosis of infection in patients?
>Absolutely not.
>>I said these things to BCapstone in private weeks ago, and
>got in reply a long diatribe explaining why I was wrong and
>he was right and how it was too important not to do. It is
>my impression, based on BCapstone's articles, that BCapstone
>is neither a trained scientist nor a licensed doctor, but
>someone who is only pretending to understand the science
>and medicine involved.
>>BCapstone has asked for considerable professional advice and
>references to research laboratories. I think he has more
>than used up his share of the professional courtesy provided
>by this newsgroup. And he has the very bad grace to argue
>with the advice he's been given.
>>If I see even one more article from BCapstone on this issue,
>I am tempted to complain to his service provider or send him
>a bill for my time, or do both.
>>Sorry for being so harsh, folks, but enough is enough.
>>--
> Una Smith una.smith at yale.edu>>Dept. of Biology, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT 06520-8104
>>As one who has followed this thread since its inception, I must agree with
Una Smith. This has gotten out of hand and I'm not certain any useful
clinical or research information will be obtained by pursuing this further.
Clinical research should be performed in an environment with appropriate
controls and safeguards. This attempt has neither and sounds like more of a
witch hunt to prove a point.
BLW
