Ketchum Paper out Tomorrow

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Yea because Twitter is such a reliable source.

You claim about relaiable sources and post Face Book and Twitter?

It's a pretty good indicator of what the general public thinks about any topic and even TV news programs use Twitter for that. I never claimed it was completely reliable or definitive proof of anything. If you've got some other source for gauging the general public's reaction to this story then you're welcome to bring it to the discussion.

DPinkerton wrote:Is the general public qualified to make these statements? NO.

CMcMillan wrote:Then why are you arguing about supposed facts when
1.) you didn't read the paper
2.) you are relaying on others to read it for you and report it.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

DPinkerton wrote:Is the general public qualified to make these statements? NO.

I wasn't bringing them up to show any scientific objections to Ketchum's paper, I was bringing them up to show the general public reaction. You do understand that those are two different things and they're both worthy of discussion, right?

In any case a lot of the comments on Twitter were from geneticists who were qualified to comment on the paper.

CMcMillan wrote:Then why are you arguing about supposed facts when
1.) you didn't read the paper
2.) you are relaying on others to read it for you and report it.

So are you, sweetie, but that's certainly not going to stop you from arguing, is it?

Squatchmaster G wrote:

DPinkerton wrote:Is the general public qualified to make these statements? NO.

I wasn't bringing them up to show any scientific objections to Ketchum's paper, I was bringing them up to show the general public reaction. You do understand that those are two different things and they're both worthy of discussion, right?

In any case a lot of the comments on Twitter were from geneticists who were qualified to comment on the paper.

CMcMillan wrote:Then why are you arguing about supposed facts when
1.) you didn't read the paper
2.) you are relaying on others to read it for you and report it.

So are you, sweetie, but that's certainly not going to stop you from arguing, is it?

CMcMillan wrote:Its amazing you are ONLY finding people who are trashing her.

paul830 wrote:I think that Melba Ketchum's shoddy work can be explained as a mad dash to publish and be peer reviewed before Brian Sykes study is released. She wants to be the one to be recognized as the person who proved the existence of this creature to the world. This explains the haphazard way she is going about things and why protocols are made secondary to just getting it out there.

This is also what is causing all the criticism and backlash against her and probably rightfully so. She is a desperate woman at this point and it shows in how she's going about things. There is a tremendous amount of ego that has been displayed already by her. It will fly or fail based on the reviews. She may be a footnote in history if nothing else.

Letting me off easy for getting suckered in? Guess I'll answer that statement first. I so appreciate you for letting me off easy. I'll make this real clear for you. I don't answer to you or anyone else here on this forum. I always try very hard to take the high road but that's just a stupid thing to say. Inflammatory, yes, sorry admin.

A lot of you here don't do field research. I do, a TON of it. We had the chance to submit samples to someone that was willing to run them. We were asked to sign NDAs, and we all did. I showed support for her from start to finish because I said I would. When I give someone my word I mean it. Those of you here that know me know this to be true. Do i agree with everything she said and did? No. Do i think she tried very hard? Yes. I very much appreciate her effort.

In the beginning everybody involved was extremely excited , and the results and information was coming hard and fast. Melba was very communicative with myself and others. Then leaks started happening and she became more guarded about what she would say and who she'd say it to. There was even a time I believe she thought I was leaking things. I wasn't. There was a period when she avoided talking to me but we got past that because she discovered who the leak was and it wasn't me. She apologized to me and we moved forward. All the while I showed support for her. My NDA is over, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join with so many others and pitch her under the bus tires. That's not in my character.

We had very high hopes for the study, and it's disappointing to watch how the release is being received. I will say this again. We had no control how the study was put out, or how the paper was structured. Our job was to gather samples and submit them. I'm not ashamed of showing her support throughout the study. If anyone want's to knock me for that then get after it. Knock away. We did our part. Oh and BTW, I can't speak for other submitters, but as far as the Olympic Project goes, we used proper technique and protocol when gathering our samples. Sterile bags and gloves, and we all gave mouth swabs.

As far as Adrian is concerned, I have nothing to do with him. One of our Olympic Project members was in Canada at a symposium with him and overheard a long conversation where he was talking a lot of crap about our organization. I confronted him about that on the phone, but that's the only time I've ever spoken to him. It's not my job or responsibility to pressure him to do anything. I'd prefer not to talk to him at all, I don't care for him or his nasty comments.

A couple of things.

1) Robert Lindsay is the one who reported that Melba Ketchum bought out the Erickson Project, Melba Ketchum never stated that herself.

2) It's abundantly clear that Melba Ketchum strongly believes that she has encountered a great deal of bias with regards to the paper. She hints at encountering elitism and sexism, and true or not, she feels that some type of injustice has occured. It's no secret that the more qualified people here view the work as severely lacking (to be kind), so I am wondering, has anyone thought that this may be somewhat intentional? Maybe she is fully aware that the work is far from complete, but since she has encountered such a massive lack of cooperation from established journals, she had to resort to an unconventional "after the fact" peer review. She put it out, as incomplete as it is, and is getting slaughtered, but whaddaya know, reputable scientists are now contacting her and extending offers to review her work. Maybe after looking at what she has, they can get with her and say, "You know, you're on to something. Maybe your interpretation of the data needs to be adjusted, but there is enough here for everyone to get together and try to figure this thing out." It could end up being a study that is revised in the open, and the peer review played out publicly.

I think it will hinge on the quality of samples. If any of them are good, how can that just go to waste? She may have completely botched the analysis, but maybe she did just enough to get some very qualified scientists curious enough to actually look at those samples. If that happens, those people probably won't screw up, and so in a weird way, she could end up being somewhat successful. Who knows.

Totally agree, what i cant understand is the negativity by some, just about at a personal level, to take nothing but negative from the report and not even trying to find or convey positive areas of the study, I find it very hard to believe that she did not get one thing right. People are saying that the whole thing is just her interpretation and no one else had anything to do with it, and that is very far from the truth, who does anything without positive input from peers or people in like fields that they are acquainted with. People in general do not behave in a manor where they proceed without acceptance on some level, especially something of this mangnatude, sorry no way i'm buying that.

What I'm seeing is that the majority of reviewers of the report seem to be zeroing in on just a certain area of the paper. Is this area the primary and only area that is to be taken as the Holy Grail? It would seem that other areas of the paper hold as much importance too. This targeting of this one area, and nowhere else....other than the charging of $ for the report, certain other areas-where reviewers thought it should be done this way, and "the only way"...I find curious.

Woodwose wrote:What doesn't tally is the notion that Ketchum was seemingly rigorous about DNA collection protocol, but neglected standard practice when it came to releasing her paper.

Well I'm not really on the inside. I've been in support of her since the beginning because I was very happy that someone put forth the effort to take on this task. We have been sitting back waiting for the release just like Carpenter, Paulides, Adrian and all the other submitters. I am disappointed that it didn't get published in a major Journal like Science or Nature, but none the less I'm glad it's finally out so qualified eyes can now see it. I was excited about what I was told the DNA showed, and I put myself on a crash course in genetics, but I didn't learn enough to be dangerous. It made my brain hurt.

Am I satisfied with the way it came out? That's a tough question. I'm just glad it did finally come out. It's been a very long five years, and It's really nice to think about other things and focus on our other research. I am told that there are some very qualified eyes looking at it right now, and I look very forward hearing what they have to say. It's really nice to that there are qualified people here looking into it as well. At the end of the day it will either stand on it's own legs, or fall flat. But I will say again, I'm grateful that someone stepped up and did it. I'm also hopeful that the Genomes can be looked into further. Hopefully something can be learned from them.

DPinkerton wrote:How the head researcher writes a paper using the results of testing that a team accomplished is up to the researcher. The team could have very well been extremely thorough.