Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 since we have confirmed the lack of info is not from a journal embargo, that just leaves the nda's. Now I'll have to do some digging ,but I think Melba is the one making everybody sign nda's. I not so sure that she is actually confined by one. I'll get back to you on that. Don't make it harder than it has to be. If she's making everyone sign NDA's and won't talk about it herself, then think of the universal motivator: $$$ Mind you, I don't say that with any contempt whatsoever; if this paper is as profound as it is being touted to be, then she deserves whatever financial benefits come along with it. If she is planning on monetizing this discovery, then it makes perfect sense not to discuss the results (or allow anyone else to discuss the results) until it is financially prudent to do so. This answer is obvious, and I wonder if people are just pretending not to understand just for the sake of arguing about it? She will talk about it when it is most advantageous for her to do so. Believe it or not, that is more important to her than satisfying the most snarky of skeptics on the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 7, 2012 Some folks must have a different agenda... One that includes repeating the same question over and over and not listening, ( understanding what they are reading ) Bombarding this forum with the same question. Why? Word. ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why don't we start another conspiracy theory about why Dr. Ketchum isn't releasing any information, just for fun? So far we've run through.... The paper doesn't exist... There is no DNA research done... It's all human DNA anyway... It's a hoax perpetrated by a genius that hoaxed all the sample collectors with the same specimens... It's never been submitted to a journal... It was submitted, maybe several times, but always rejected... Did I miss any? How about a new conspiracy theory: She has done solid research, written a paper in collaboration with a number of fellow researchers, submitted it to a recognized journal, gone through the peer review process and is waiting for publication BUT will not release any information because (drumrolls) she can't wait to log onto the BFF every morning to read the rantings of the skeptics and wouldn't want to spoil all their fun. Or has someone already covered that conspiracy? ... maybe it was the guy on the grassy knoll... ... that's the ticket... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 For the impatient, there are plenty of other sources of BF corroborating evidence over which to argue the virtues until the Ketchum Paper sees the light of day. Just try the other threads. And when you have exhausted those, there is the Premium Membership area - a veritable mine of BF information, and only $20 to get in. (Popcorn not included. Enjoyment mileage may vary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Squating, What's the real reason why you are so obsessed with the Ketchum study? I ask because you have gotten just about every answer under the sun that could possibly account for the time it's taking and you do not seemed to accept any of them? What's up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hey Folks, let's take a moment of reflection here please......... We're here to talk about the Ketchum Report (that's implicit in the title of the thread). The moment we start talking about each other we're running off topic, and we're starting to head towards the limits set by our rules. Furthermore, a number of you may have missed this, but we have a couple of new rules, and one in particular that can be applied to questioning each other's posting motives. Let me introduce you to rule 3E: E. Leave the moderation of the forum to the forum staff. Members should not attempt to control or influence what others post on this forum. So, if you don't like the way someone is posting, you can bring this to the attention of staff, but attempting to deal with it yourselves is a specific rule infraction. This doesn't mean that people can, for instance, endlessly post the same question over and over, because sooner or later the staff will discuss the possibility that this is trolling, and will deal with it. But, as I said, this is for staff to decide. We are already talking about it. So, can we please focus back on the Ketchum Report, and not on each other. Thank you kindly. Mike PS The other new Rule is Rule 2E: E. If your post or thread disappears, it may be under review by moderators. Do not repost the content and do not ask questions about it on the open forum. Contact a moderator by PM instead. The BFF will, at its discretion, close or move from public view any posts or threads that we find to have exceeded these boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Shouldn't be any surprise, it's what I've said from the beginning. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the journal placing an embargo upon the author. Don't believe I've ever argued otherwise. My contention is that claims for the journal not allowing her to publish anything is completely unsupported by evidence. It's not me that's failing to grasp things. The whole non-issue of an embargo by the journal came up months ago. I provided links back then to show why it was a non-issue. NDAs between Ketchum and private individuals have nothing to do with any unproven embargo implemented by a science journal. No one has shown there is an embargo in place, so why you keep ranting on about it is a mystery to me. Great, however that would be between her and the people she has an NDA agreement with, not any embargo by the journal. Until some people understand? RayG Ray, the only reason the embargo keeps getting brought up is because Skeptics (such as yourself) think they've "debunked" the Embargo. 1) They haven't. Embargos have been documented. Anyone saying or suggesting that embargos don't exist or don't keep researchers from talking about their papers to the public are wrong. 100% wrong. Period. Full stop. 2) Embargo notwithstanding, The NDAs kick in and she still can't talk about the paper. So the ultimate question...why won't she talk about the paper...is answered conclusively. But they want to keep harping about "debunking" the embargo, because that implies that Ketchum is being untruthful about even having a study/paper. And we all see that ploy for what it is. Edited September 7, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Oops, sorry, I had no idea....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 While we're at staff statements again in this thread - please remember the following: Rule 2. (Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here). Thanks :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Is dishonest on that list. .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 No. This is a common mistake. Members are allowed to be dishonest. How could it be otherwise? Moderators can't run around checking the truth of every single comment on the forum obviously. Now........back to the Ketchum Report. Clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 How come she can't reveal information about the study? C'mon it's been 3 years and she hasn't even said if it's been accepted for peer review! *ducking and running* :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 ^Actually, she has, repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 So I guess what Id like to ask after 257 pages is: 1) in DNA research is it common to sign NDA's pertaining to your test samples? 2) in submitting a paper on DNA research to a peer reviewed journal how long would an embargo last 3) Why cant somebody just call Ketchum and ask a simple question: Did you submitt a paper for publication and did it pass the peer review process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 ^ 1) Depends. Point is that she DID and is bound by them. 2) already answered (until immediately before publication) 3) she's already said yes to the first and that they were working on revisions to satisfy the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts