southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 SY - There is no lawbreaking unless she is knowingly submitting identifiable HSS DNA without permission. IF she has consent from the evidence submitters to rule out contamination (as reported and expected) it would not be considered breaking the law to upload the data. She would be uploading novel DNA w/contamination and not knowingly violating someone's privacy (which she would already be protected from by obtaining the consent to rule out contamination as necessary). Again, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill here unless you are claiming she is KNOWINGLY and without consent submitting identifiable HSS DNA to GenBank? I can't read her mind to know if it would be knowingly or unknowingly. If she were proven wrong on every sample, she could be liable sans any proof there was another hominin extant with human mtDNA. She's convinced she had single source mito's from the tissue attached to hairs that did not conform to human morphology, but if she is the only one that is convinced this indicated a new hominin and justified nuDNA testing , then the court of popular opinion might decide in favor of contamination and the human DNA misrepresented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Look who made the list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well, that's not something to add to your CV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well, that's not something to add to your CV... I dont know, I might give it a go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I think everyone is still missing the point.... I was told four times through a spokesperson that there is no more data. Everything she has is in the paper. All the raw data is in the paper. But this contradicts what it says in her own paper. Why? If she can suddenly publish to Genbank and there's more data that she provided, her statements to me are false. Except this time they aren't hidden in emails, they're published for all to see. I think the spokes person is likely misinformed. You talked to Ketchum personally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Oh, and this a for profit service BTW........... SY - Just curious as to why you made this statement. Dr. Ketchum's lab is for profit, so why would this be a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I talk to Troy Hudson who relayed messages directly from Ketchum to me. Troy has been there for the whole deal. He's not misinformed. She has no desire to talk to anyone connected with the BF community. They knew who I was and who I was representing. He's the one that responded through her facebook page. And I made sure what I asked was clear. Multiple times. They didn't even understand what the 1% claim was, because everything was included. Read the article, it's clear. You do realize you own anything remaining from your sample right? You can request it back and have it tested independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I talk to Troy Hudson who relayed messages directly from Ketchum to me. Troy has been there for the whole deal. He's not misinformed. She has no desire to talk to anyone connected with the BF community. They knew who I was and who I was representing. He's the one that responded through her facebook page. And I made sure what I asked was clear. Multiple times. They didn't even understand what the 1% claim was, because everything was included. Read the article, it's clear. You do realize you own anything remaining from your sample right? You can request it back and have it tested independently. So are they saying they DID NOT sequence 3 whole genomes, 90gb of data, 30X coverage? Because if that is all, they lied in their paper! Has that ever been put to them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That's the question I asked in my article... Either they're wrong in the paper, or they misled me. With everything else going on with the journals, now being placed on the predatory journal list, as well as the contradictions with other things, it's not looking good. The one possibility that isn't mentioned is the UT Southwestern Medical did the sequencing, but they could have only handed over the 2% of chromosome 11 that we see in the paper. They adamantly didn't want to comment on the data. Dear Mr. Weeast, Thank you for your email concerning the sequencing that we provided to Dr. Ketchum and co-workers. This work was performed as a fee for service. We have not been involved in the analysis of the results. Further, we are not at liberty and have no intention of discussing the laboratory results that we obtained with anyone but Dr. Ketchum or her colleagues. I would suggest that you direct your questions to her. Our core has only provided sequencing service for this study and we are not involved beyond that. All the best, Ward Wakeland Edward K. Wakeland, Ph.D Edwin L. Cox Distinguished Chair in Immunology and Genetics Director, Walter M. and Helen D. Bader Center for Research on Arthritis and Autoimmune Diseases Director, IIMT Genomics Core Professor and Chairman, Department of Immunology There's quite a few contributors from the paper on the list of employees there. Add those to the co-authors that say they only did the work and didn't write anything, and you see a pattern. And Sunday, Ketchum posted on facebook that they sent the data to GenBank but it's going to be a long wait. What is the usual wait time on submission to Genbank? If they're submitting the same thing in the paper, it will again prove nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I see that OTLS posted an update today: http://seesdifferent.../#comment-25548 Edited March 21, 2013 by Shboom2 in GA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I talk to Troy Hudson who relayed messages directly from Ketchum to me. Troy has been there for the whole deal. He's not misinformed. She has no desire to talk to anyone connected with the BF community. They knew who I was and who I was representing. He's the one that responded through her facebook page. And I made sure what I asked was clear. Multiple times. They didn't even understand what the 1% claim was, because everything was included. Read the article, it's clear. You do realize you own anything remaining from your sample right? You can request it back and have it tested independently. I know Troy, and to be polite, I'd rather have Paulides do the job. Yes, of coarse I know I own the rest of my sample I choose to participate in studies by scientists that want to publish because I don't have the funds to pay for the testing I want to see done. SY - Just curious as to why you made this statement. Dr. Ketchum's lab is for profit, so why would this be a problem? It's not to me, but a red flag to some.....as if for profit labs can't be trusted ........I'm sure you get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The problem isn't that she's a for profit. But you can't advertise as a non-profit, yet be registered as a for-profit business. Because when people claim those deductions and then it turns out they're not deductible... And all the donations go to her paypal address, which is connected to her DNA diagnostics account. Remember when she said she had nothing to do with publishing? The payments for everything on the journal still point to the same account. Hopefully her paperwork is in better shape than the paper is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Thanks John. I appreciate your efforts. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Can anyone speak to the claims of Scott Carpenter over on his site? I am interested in hearing what you think of his statements posted today. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Btw, just so no one has to take my word for it... go to https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/Index.html and enter Global Sasquatch Foundation. Notice it's a business. Take note of the City. Then go to the IRS lookup for non-profits at http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Select-Check enter city and Global Sasquatch Foundation. Nothing. Madison - It seems like a good argument, but then you have to think about the details. Melba never asked for Justin's DNA. Also, Derek, not Justin is the submitter. What's Derek's haplotype? The fact that there isn't a complete list of haplotypes given for submitters and testers make the argument empty. We can't verify even Scott's haplotype with his sample. We can take people's word for it, but here we end up with the same back and forth that shouldn't happen with science. It allows the argument to happen, which takes away the focus from the big picture. Bad science practices leads to even worse arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts