Guest Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Regarding the Complaints, I dont even see a reason why that should put Dr. Ketchum in a wrong light. The more the Business is down the more she needs a legid study. She doesnt earn anything more before publication anyway. If anything would be just for money, she surely could kept on paid testing, with "not BF" results for years. Edited August 5, 2012 by Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 As a former business owner, I don't give BBB complaints much credence. Anyone can make a complaint to the BBB. And some of those complaints can be pretty frivolous. The BBB has no more control over a business, whether that business is a member of the BBB or not. It's almost like making a complaint to your congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 ^ As a business owner myself I pay as close attention to BBB complaints as I do Justin Beiber's wardrobe..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 ^IMO it just seems like more Ketchum apoligetics than anything. I dont think, and this is my opinion, that she has acted at a level of integrity that should be from someone conducting a study of this magnitude. Im convinced she was not the person to do this study, and again IMO, nothing will come from her study. I am optimistic that someone with more ability and professionalism with do a study that can actually give more answers than questions and speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 i don't think there is any need for apologies. The intent of my post 7186 is to put the entire issue of BBB complaints in perspective. It seems that every few months somebody discovers the issue of the BBB complaints and starts waving them around as if they are proof positive that Dr. Ketchum is now tarnished beyond repair, when in reality they are simply a collection of complaints from disgruntled customers of a high volume retail business. The BBB complaints against Dr. Ketchum's business should be read with that in mind and taken with a grain of salt, noting the clustering of complaints in 2010 with a radical drop off of complaints after 2010. By comparison I also looked at BBB complaint histories with reputable companies I use as vendors and .... surprise surprise!... they also have complaints on record. This by no means changes my opinion about these companies, and I think that any reasonable person would view BBB complaints in light of their overall experience with a company. I certainly wouldn't use BBB complaints as the primary factor for whether to use a particular company, in fact I don't use BBB complaints at all to determine whether I use a company. While I grant your opinion of Dr. Ketchum, I would gently remind you that Dr. Ketchum is a forum member and is afforded the same level of courtesy and respect that any forum member is given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 LOL it's no different than this fourm if someone's not complaining about you then your not doing anything. What you really need to look at is what the company does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 ^ Amen to that. Reading the complaints did give me a newfound respect for the fact that the bulk of her business (at least from the complaints I read) seems to be very small dollar transactions. I can't imagine the amount of work involved in doing a $35 DNA report. There needs to be a lot of those transactions done to keep the doors open. It would be surprising to me if she didn't get complaints. ... as for the comparison to complaints on this forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 BFS, LOL no doubt!!! If you look at what the companies primary business is, ensuring that a horse or cows heritage is "as advertised" for purchase, stud ect. I would have to assume that this type of DNA work is not the same as a complete genome study for a as yet unknown hominid walking amoung us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I try to keep in mind that Dr. Ketchum works with specific genetic markers among numerous species which includes the ID of species or specific human beings. That range of experience would be beneficial in "detecting" something out of the ordinary initially. Her lab would likely have contact and probably subcontracts with other labs with different specialties. I would expect that is where "some" of the deeper analysis comes from. While I think Dr. Ketchum likely set up the blind study on the samples, the results probably attracted qualified and credentialed co-authors on it's own. If you think about it, thats eactly what would happen with DNA indicating an extant and uncatalogued hominin or manlike beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I have no doubt that's what should happen and could happen and may have finally have happened....I guess we will know someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 SOMEDAY.....I think that's the key word in this reply. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Someday, we might get the proof. But with the above mentioned study, in combination of early dna find leaks, we already know the way this most likely is going to work out. The mentioned article might even be some kind of pre test (an original unassociated study but waited for release first, because of similarities), to see how accepted it is, and to improve on that ones flaws/critic for the bombshell story to make it more "water tight". Pure speculation for sure, but Cell seems to be a likely candidate for the study anyhow, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) I would try it like this "You have evidence of the existence of BF?, really? Show me the evidence.<<Read bigfoot sighting, Look at blurry video, Hold up a giant plaster cast to the light>>.. OK, when you get some actual evidence, the kind that they have used to ID animals for 500 years, nothing special, just that standard new species evidence, we will revisit this." And there's your problem right there, Drew. You only consider dispositive proof (ie, a body) to even BE evidence. You would look favorably on photos, tracks, eyewitness accounts for wolves or bears or whatever (or at a minimum not dismiss the matter out of hand), so you should, if you are intellectually honest, give BF the same due consideration. ONE evidence bar for ALL claims = scientific integrity I have no problem with you investigating anything, my debate was about the quality of the evidence. How is that ridicule? No one owes anyone proof, but if the bias persists about what is proof it will do your investigation more harm than good in the long run IMO. If I were going to do research, these are the researchers I think have the right attitude and that you should use as a mentor( regardless of what you might think about their personalities), they question everything, they don't accept everything they read because someone has a PhD behind their name, they are well read in their own right to be able distinguish what is sound theory and what is bull based strictly on what I've read here and a few other places. That would be John Cartwright, Splash, and Masterbarber, all excellent examples of folks who use their critical thinking skills. I'll see your Splash, et al and raise you Dr Meldrum, Sarimento, Swindler, Schaller, et al. Your comment is just a veiled cheap shot at all those worthy scientists. I'm sick of legitimate scientists who are pro-BF being accused of "not utilizing 'critical thinking' ", as if no rational individual could look at the case to hand and find sufficient evidence at a minimum to establish the strong liklihood of an unknown primate existing as the source of the evidence. Edited August 6, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I do think that the vehement dismissal of the BBB complaints as groundless is total Ketchum apologetics. Maybe it doesnt have anything to do with how she runs her business, but I am sure if she had a 100% A rating from the BBB it would have been paraded around as proof she was a competent scientist and business woman. And I cant help but wonder if there were a lab that was doing a DNA study that disproved the existance of bigfoot, and that lab had the same BBB rating that the proponents would be calling them to task because of it. Its time to recognize the poor leadership, poor business, and mishandling of this study and put support behind someone who can actually deliver an unbiased scientific DNA study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Darrell, why do you think it's biased? If I recall, she was a skeptic until she saw the results. Additionally, I agree that some credence should be paid, but the complaints weren't about false/bad tests, they were about timeliness, so how much credence is the question. And I think if she truly had a 'poor business', then there wouldn't be a DNA Diagnostics left to submit samples to, no? The rating should be considered, but in the end, the science should be judged on it's own, late delivery of dog DNA testing or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts