southernyahoo Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 A case can be presented to the ICZN, and they can investigate and decide to keep or deny the name and publication,†Dr. Grossman explains. In addition to the problems mentioned above, “The sample sources appear to be of dubious origin and cannot be substantiated or recollected (that is, no possible repeatability of the tests)â€. Dr. Grossman contends that a challenge to remove the name may succeed based on these weaknesses." This is not the case for at least one sample, and it should have all that is necessary genetically.
Guest Darrell Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 How I read that is that if you have one DNA sample and cant provide another seperate sample from the same individual it therefore cannot be recollected for a repeatable test and thus becomes unsubstantiated. Kinda makes sense doesnt it?
southernyahoo Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 For those samples that were single hairs yes, because they get destroyed, so you don't send all of them when you have a sizable sample from one subject. That would be the case with my sample. I wouldn't say unsubstantiated, because it took substance to give the DNA in the first place. Some aren't going to be repeatable that's a given but not all.
Guest Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Just think how much information she might have shared if it weren't for the $&@" skeptics post she recieved. Guess we will never know .... You're so right because that is how mature adult professional scientists act. I questioned Melba about this - the self publishing, not peer reviewed..the whole nine yards. Here was her response (which is publicly posted, btw) The hackers did it all. Seems the last time something was posted that was in a negative light, the site sent down and the claim was that it was hacked. I could swear that it was stated that they purchased the journal - Both in writing and in several interviews. But I also recall her saying it was "acquired". So maybe it was just others who claimed she purchased it. I have a feeling this whole lawyer thing goes far deeper and is much darker and she wants people to know about. The more she keeps throwing around the names of her supposed coauthors makes me think that she is in for some huge trouble in the near future.
Guest Tyler H Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 So, the post that was justifying why they were never peer reviewed, and the post which alleged scientific bias... this post that repeated all the usual Ketchum nonsense defenses... it was actually a hack? Wow, what a brilliant hack. I wonder whose side the hackers were on?
chelefoot Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 She says it was a hack. And that the Hackers put that notice from the "Supporters" (the one saying it never passed peer review and the journal was never purchased) on the site along with the pics that were on the BFE yesterday as posted above. However today, in order to fix the hack, it was found that the name of the Denovo site has been changed... a dash was added. Odd... I don't know. It all is very strange. I have my opinion based on my conversation with her and other parties last night - but I'll keep it to myself.
BobbyO Posted October 26, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 26, 2013 (edited) Train wreck, from top to bottom. Done more harm to this subject than good and continues to do so seemingly daily. Edited October 26, 2013 by BobbyO
Guest Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 The fact that the domain name changed seems to indicate a possible hostile takeover.
Guest Darrell Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 ^ Or just the writing on the wall is comming true and her house of cards is collapsing on its self. Everything that woman touches turns to crap-ola.
Guest Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 So, the post that was justifying why they were never peer reviewed, and the post which alleged scientific bias... this post that repeated all the usual Ketchum nonsense defenses... it was actually a hack? Wow, what a brilliant hack. I wonder whose side the hackers were on? ScienceCritic, on 23 Oct 2013 - 5:53 PM, said: Just think how much information she might have shared if it weren't for the $&@" skeptics post she recieved. Guess we will never know .... You're so right because that is how mature adult professional scientists ( excuse me hackers ) act.
Guest Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 The study hacked itself apart the day it came out. The scientific community just stood there and laughed at the broken pieces.
chelefoot Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 the post that was justifying why they were never peer reviewed, and the post which alleged scientific bias... I had actually hoped that they would own up to that post. But according to Melba when I sent it to her requesting a response, she said it was put up by the hackers. Here it is in case you haven't seen it Maybe the hackers just didn't know what month it was.
Guest Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) Two Links to understand how to read the Ketchum Data: Interpretation of Sequencing Chromatographs: http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/dnaseq/interpret.html BLAST Sequence Analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21097/ Edited October 29, 2013 by Data
TimB Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 I have a feeling this whole lawyer thing goes far deeper and is much darker and she wants people to know about. The more she keeps throwing around the names of her supposed coauthors makes me think that she is in for some huge trouble in the near future. Is there anything besides your feeling that leads you to this conclusion? I'm looking for facts here.
Guest Darrell Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 ^Facts have never been part of this mess so why should then now?
Recommended Posts