Ketchum DNA Paper?

Contamination could have occurred (and is most likely to have occurred) when samples were taken, or between collection and processing. If the samples are tainted then it wouldn't matter how many labs tested the samples and came up with identical results.

Also we only have Ketchum's word that more than one lab produced identical results. If those labs don't come forward and confirm her claims then the samples must be tested again by multiple labs. So far it seems that there is only one lab that will go on record and obviously there is a chance that they could have screwed up.

The labs confirmed the results with the Data Provided. So now the labs have to come out and say YES that is the results we got?
Really? This is why she has Footnote references. So people who read the paper can follow up the research.

Other scientists don't have the labs Go YEP THAT is what we tested. But you seem to want the labs for her to do this.

She also Had taken DNA swabs of all the People who collected the evidence. So they could check against them as well.

Gave a list of the LABS she had above. I am sure you can call anyone of them yourself.

As far as I am aware Ketchum is the only source for information about the labs used and their findings. So, yes we would need the labs involved to come forward and confirm that what Ketchum has claimed is correct.

And yes, I know that DNA samples were provided from both lab staff and those individuals who collected samples. However some geneticists who have looked at the paper seem to think that the lab results are consistent with contamination. That's why we need more labs to look at the samples and other researchers to consider points of potential contamination.

All of these kinds of checks would have been part of the peer review process. If that was the case - and it's yet to be established if there was any peer review - then Ketchum needs to be more transparent about what occurred during peer review.

Woodwose wrote:As far as I am aware Ketchum is the only source for information about the labs used and their findings. So, yes we would need the labs involved to come forward and confirm that what Ketchum has claimed is correct.

And yes, I know that DNA samples were provided from both lab staff and those individuals who collected samples. However some geneticists who have looked at the paper seem to think that the lab results are consistent with contamination. That's why we need more labs to look at the samples and other researchers to consider points of potential contamination.

All of these kinds of checks would have been part of the peer review process. If that was the case - and it's yet to be established if there was any peer review - then Ketchum needs to be more transparent about what occurred during peer review.

You are now entering in to the realm of Other people need to do the same work to verify the labs results.
Other Geneticists can do the same work and spend the same time.
She sighted the Labs in her paper she has footnotes to the work they did. This is what is needed for any publication.
Other Scientists then can query the labs and the findings. The may also acquire their own samples or ask Ketchum for any samples she still has to run there own testing. This is not peer review. This is now other people trying to replicate her findings.
Why does she need to be transparent about her peer review. All peer reviews are anonymous for a reason.

I get your need to want transparency because of the questions. But if the Most transparent President can't be transparent why should we require Melba to be more transparent. (Yes a little sarcasm, but your view of transparent my differ from someone else)

Most Geneticist are working with her to verify her findings. Not the crowd blasting her but the people who are interested in it have contacted her and are working with her. To verify and replicate the work.

Honestly she opened the door to have people look at it seriously now. Even if it is to try to prove her wrong.

You are getting two seperate things that I have said confused.

Peer review would have onvolved verifying that the cited labs were indeed involved and the results they observed matched those presented by Ketchum. As far as I am aware this has not occured.

As a seperate issue, even if the above has taken place (and regardless of any peer review) other researchers must replicate her results in order to confirm her conclusions. That is how science works.

Initially promising research and papers that pass peer review can go on to be undermined by subsequent studies and attempts to replicate results.

Peer review would have onvolved verifying that the cited labs were indeed involved and the results they observed matched those presented by Ketchum. As far as I am aware this has not occured.

She would be sued for mentioning and siting the LABS that didn't do the work. She has Cited them in a professional manner. Has any legal issues been filed on her since the paper came out? NO then so far her word on the labs that did the work is valid.


Yes the other issue is That Scientists can now try to replicate her work. That is not Peer Review.

Analysis for Hire Laboratories Used in the Blind Study:
The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis of samples in the study on a work for hire basis and were not initially told the origin of the samples being tested until after the samples were tested:
Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008
SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054
UT Southwestern Medical Center, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 1
Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257
Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas 77843
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 7520

Again she sighted them they were also BLIND STUDY:

CMcMillan wrote:Yes the other issue is That Scientists can now try to replicate her work. That is not Peer Review.

I didn't claim that it was. As stated above you were confusing two separate issues I was raising.

Citing the labs isn't enough. The labs need to confirm that they were involved and that Ketchum has not misrepresented their results.

If there is a problem then there may well be some litigation down the line. It's too early to know where the labs stand. The fact that they haven't made a statement talls us nothing; they may have no reason to contradict Ketchum or they may not wish to be dragged into the circus ring.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Yes the other issue is That Scientists can now try to replicate her work. That is not Peer Review.

I didn't claim that it was. As stated above you were confusing two separate issues I was raising.

Citing the labs isn't enough. The labs need to confirm that they were involved and that Ketchum has not misrepresented their results.

If there is a problem then there may well be some litigation down the line. It's too early to know where the labs stand. The fact that they haven't made a statement talks us nothing; they may have no reason to contradict Ketchum or they may not wish to be dragged into the circus ring.

By your own statement WHY then MUST a LAB confirm? Seriously they State the Information in the Paper IF the labs want to Deny it they will speak up. If they say nothing then the work they did stands on its own. The conclusions may be disputed but the research they did is not.

Woodwose wrote:Contamination could have occurred (and is most likely to have occurred) when samples were taken, or between collection and processing. If the samples are tainted then it wouldn't matter how many labs tested the samples and came up with identical results.

Also we only have Ketchum's word that more than one lab produced identical results. If those labs don't come forward and confirm her claims then the samples must be tested again by multiple labs. So far it seems that there is only one lab that will go on record and obviously there is a chance that they could have screwed up.

Wait...so really it doesn't matter what the DNA test results are or how many people test them...it is still most likely contamination.

So honestly...how exactly can the results ever be verified? 1,000 labs can get the same results...and we are right back with nothing because of likely contamination?

What process can ever be done then that would yield results acceptable to you?

CMcMillan wrote:Seriously they State the Information in the Paper IF the labs want to Deny it they will speak up. If they say nothing then the work they did stands on its own. The conclusions may be disputed but the research they did is not.

The labs may not even know that they are being referenced and they may not have checked to see if Ketchum has honestly reported their findings.

It seems very strange that you don't wish to know if Ketchum's findings are legitimate.

DPinkerton wrote:Wait...so really it doesn't matter what the DNA test results are or how many people test them...it is still most likely contamination.

No. What I am saying is that, if independant analysis confirms that the current results are likely due to contamination and new testing produces the same results then contamination will be confirmed and further testing pointless.

In other words, we would know that there was a problem with the way the samples had been collected and handled prior to being sent off for analysis.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Seriously they State the Information in the Paper IF the labs want to Deny it they will speak up. If they say nothing then the work they did stands on its own. The conclusions may be disputed but the research they did is not.

The labs may not even know that they are being referenced and they may not have checked to see if Ketchum has honestly reported their findings.

It seems very strange that you don't wish to know if Ketchum's findings are legitimate.

The LABS know. They were given the samples for a Blind Study and testing.
You are acting like these Labs are stupid.
All your doing is looking for ways to discredit the Science and the lab work Melba had done.

Wait one min.
No I said her Findings IE conclusions may be in debate. The LAB work that the Labs did is not. If you even attempt to read the Paper she goes into all the ways they handled the evidence as well as making sure it was not contaiminated. So the Lab work seems to be sound.
Her conclusions would be whats up for debate.

So from now on any scientist that has blind study's they all need to have the Labs admit the findings.

CMcMillan wrote:The LABS know. They were given the samples for a Blind Study and testing.

We only have Ketchum's word for that. Anyone can claim to have sent samples to a lab for testing. As I said before the labs need to confirm their involvement.

I'm not looking for ways to discredit the paper. I'm identifying self-evident issues with the authenticity of Ketchum's findings.

The LAB work that the Labs did is not. If you even attempt to read the Paper she goes into all the ways they handled the evidence as well as making sure it was not contaiminated.

We don't even know if the alleged lab work has been carried out and there is no documentary evidence of sample collection. We have no photos of samples being collected, or the equipment used, or video showing exactly how samples were taken.

We have anecdotal evidence of witnesses observing BF taking food from a sample trap, yet no photos or video. Don't you find that strange? I know we ave the excuse that BF avoids electronic devices, yet somehow that didn't prevent someone filming one sleeping on the forest floor.

A lot of things simply do not add up and Ketchum hasn't come close to doing what is necessary to establish that any of her paper has a basis in reality.

All the things I have previously mentioned need to be verified and this should have happened during the process of peer review. The fact that this verification is not available means that Ketchum is lying about being peer reviewed, or that the peer review process was so poor that it has been rendered worthless.

In short there is no evidence Ketchum's paper has been peer reviewed, no evidence Ketchum has carried out the research discussed in her paper and certainly no evidence for the existence of a new species. The standard of evidence needed to prove the existence of any new species is very very high and Ketchum has fallen far short of the mark........so far.

I've added that final caveat as more information may yet come to light that vindicates Ketchum.

None of the above amounts to looking for ways to discredit the paper. I'm just asking the sort of questions that everyone needs to consider. That would apply to any non-peer reviewed paper and not just research that is BF related.

Trusting that everything in Ketchum's paper is accurate would be extremely naive.

Wood,
You are going overboard in wanting validation for everything.
Have you read any other style papers where the authors give you every little piece of information and photos of all the evidence behind the scenes? Obviously you haven't because they don't do this.

You can Question the samples all you want.
How do you explain the Unknown "Primate/Hominid" that was geneblasted several times and by several labs in the ndna they found?
This is the LAB. The DNA didn't show up any current DNA in the geneblast. You can debate the conclusions she reaches on time frame and all.
But your saying all the LABS LIED and forged the DATA.
Or you are saying Melba changed the DATA even when she has specified which samples in "pictures" which YOU can get with the full paper to back up all your questions.
So maybe you should spend the 30 dollars to read all she has. Then come back and complain.
Right now you are complaining with out knowing any information. Only what you are reading from other sources.

I suggest if you want some of your Questions Answered Purchase the Journal and all the other resources that comes with the original Paper.
Instead of Blindly saying she didn't do any of this stuff.

I'm saying is that we need to see verification of the data and methodology that would ordinarily have been checked during peer review. That isn't asking too much - it's just asking Ketchum to meet the standards everyone else has to meet.

The supposed unique primate/hominid DNA has been described by some leading geneticists as being no such thing; but rather typical of results you would see from contamination or corruption of a sample. Ketchum needs to show that ths cannot be the case.

I'm not saying that the labs have lied. I'm saying tht we have no evidence that the cited labs were even consulted. Anyone can draw up a list of labs and personnel and the whole thing could be a fabrication created by Ketchum.

I repeat, all of these doubts would not be raised if the paper had been through legitimate peer review. Nor would I ask these questions if I understood them to have been answered in the paper.

As things currently stand Ketchum does not appear to have met the standards required of a serious scientific paper. Until that situation changes there is nothing more to discuss.

Woodwose wrote:We don't even know if the alleged lab work has been carried out and there is no documentary evidence of sample collection. We have no photos of samples being collected, or the equipment used, or video showing exactly how samples were taken.

...

In short there is no evidence Ketchum's paper has been peer reviewed, no evidence Ketchum has carried out the research discussed in her paper and certainly no evidence for the existence of a new species. The standard of evidence needed to prove the existence of any new species is very very high and Ketchum has fallen far short of the mark........so far.

It is hard to debate your expectations and your possible assumption that she just sat in a lab with her friends for a few years playing cards.

It is hard to debate your assertion that she just made up a bogus paper and threw some other labs names on it (with the hope none of them would ever find out).

I agree outside verification is necessary...but I think your assessment of how much is a bit extreme. I might be ignorant to it all, but it seems to me that if I get a particular finding and send it off to another for verification...I would send them the sample...they would verify it and tell me they agree or tell me what they found...I would say thank you. Make a note of it and that it was verified and by whom. It is outside the scope of her paper to include anything more than the citation. For that matter...based on your current assumptions...she could have made up all these outside verification forms from other labs and included them...but they wouldn't mean anything because it was just a letter she could have made up.

Plenty to discuss
Because you fail to Purchase the Paper and read the DATA.
If you did many of your SO called doubts about the LABS and Evidence would be answered.

Also several "researchers" KNOW that the DNA and PAPER is being checked again.
The people have it and are investigating the DATA.

Its been verified by several well known Skeptics in the Bigfoot Forums.

Everyone wanted the paper put out. Just to put it out.
Now she did and everyone is attacking her.
Well she put it out for anyone to review it and contact her for more data.

Woodwose wrote:As things currently stand Ketchum does not appear to have met the standards required of a serious scientific paper. Until that situation changes there is nothing more to discuss.

Agreed...of course you are not a scientist (I do not believe) nor have you read the paper....but hey.

In the end I will refrain from discussing it with you.

CMcMillan wrote:Everyone wanted the paper put out. Just to put it out.
Now she did and everyone is attacking her.
Well she put it out for anyone to review it and contact her for more data.

The problem is that she didn't release the paper according to accepted standards. That's part of the reason people are questioning the paper (note: questioning does not = attacking).

Contrary to what you say, no one has verified the data or confirmed that the cited labs were in any way involved with the research. All anyone has verified is that the contents of the paper match Ketchum's outline.

Only one 'scientist' has come forward to back the paper and he admits that he doesn't actually understand the data.

There remain a lot of questions that need to be answered by qualified scientists and for some reason when I state as much, I'm being unreasonable and attacking Ketchum. If the scientific community does take the research seriously and moves onto the stage of attempting to disprove Ketchum's findings (a standard practice within science), I suppose you will call it a witch hunt?

DPinkerton wrote:In the end I will refrain from discussing it with you.

If you can't entertain the possibility that you might be mistaken and that I'm not an adversary, that's probably a good thing.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Everyone wanted the paper put out. Just to put it out.
Now she did and everyone is attacking her.
Well she put it out for anyone to review it and contact her for more data.

The problem is that she didn't release the paper according to accepted standards. That's part of the reason people are questioning the paper (note: questioning does not = attacking).

Contrary to what you say, no one has verified the data or confirmed that the cited labs were in any way involved with the research. All anyone has verified is that the contents of the paper match Ketchum's outline.

Only one 'scientist' has come forward to back the paper and he admits that he doesn't actually understand the data.

There remain a lot of questions that need to be answered by qualified scientists and for some reason when I state as much, I'm being unreasonable and attacking Ketchum. If the scientific community does take the research seriously and moves onto the stage of attempting to disprove Ketchum's findings (a standard practice within science), I suppose you will call it a witch hunt?

You talk about Standard Practice within science.
You have not read the paper have you?
You have not seen any of the " verified the data or confirmed that the cited labs were in any way involved with the research."
so unless your willing to pony up you should not be saying what Standard Practice should be.

The DATA is verifiable.
Her conclusions are what is in question.
The scientists who you say, say the Data is contaminated have not called her and spoken to her.
Several Scientists HAVE contacted her to look at the data. It has been confirmed They will release the results when they get them.
Your arguing at what you THINK should have happened.
She explained the problems she ran into.
So now she is getting a PUBLIC peer review. How is this BAD? It got those "Scientists" you respect so much to look at the paper and now they are reviewing it with the data she presented them.
If she was making all this up People would not have verified that she did give a number of people the data. And she would have refused to give the DATA to them.

No its not a witch hunt. What you and the people who have not READ the paper and commenting on stuff you are only reading from 3rd parties is the WITCH HUNT you know its that Hearsay Evidence you skeptics don't like so much.

First up is Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine:

“As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”


so explain to me where you see the fraud?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/biochemist-supports-ketchum-sasquatch-dna-study/

http://www.greenresourcesredux.com/675107

CMcMillan wrote:The DATA is verifiable.

Possibly, but no one has come forward and verified it as yet. How many times do I have to explain that the list of labs and technicians could be a fabrication?

Several Scientists HAVE contacted her to look at the data. It has been confirmed They will release the results when they get them.

We are going around in circles here. You can't say that the data has been verified until these results are published and the labs confirm that they were involved and that their data has not been misrepresented.

What you and the people who have not READ the paper and commenting on stuff you are only reading from 3rd parties is the WITCH HUNT you know its that Hearsay Evidence you skeptics don't like so much.

Since I haven't formed an opinion about the veracity of the paper, none of your above comment makes sense. I haven't said that the paper is bogus, I have not said that Ketchum is lying and in no way have I attacked Ketchum or her findings.

All I have done is express doubts and ask questions. Since I'm not qualified to read the paper and have a technically informed opinion on Ketchum's scientific findings, these doubts are based on the views of scientists who have read the paper and know what they are talking about. Having doubts and asking questions does not amount to a witch hunt.

I neither back nor refute the paper, so how can I be on a witch hunt, how can what I have said constitute an attack on Ketchum? In this discussion you misconstrue everything I say to be adversarial and as a result I am the only one facing any animosity. And for what?.........having doubts and asking questions

CMcMillan wrote:so explain to me where you see the fraud?

I haven't categorically said that there has been any fraud. I'm saying that fraud hasn't fully been ruled out.

Do you see the difference?