I’m not surprised you missed the point. What I was getting at was the fact that you’ve set up a false dichotomy: the test was either in error or not. You’re overlooking the option that the test may not have been appropriate for the conclusion Pitman was trying to draw.
That excerpt, for example, supports the idea that the test is very good at detecting whether a substance is present. That doesn’t mean it’s any good at telling you what the substance is, or that better tests haven’t been developed in the past 30 years.
I’m just talking about flaws in your reasoning, not in your knowledge.
From post#135’
“Again (for, what? the third time now? the fourth?) Pitman wrote:
For example, mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.
Note this is a full sentence. He writes that the hormone — not some partial aspect of the hormone, not data from some immunological probe indirectly detecting the hormone — but just the hormone “is identical”.
However the paper he cites says NO SUCH THING. It says only that they are “similar”.
However the research paper says exactly what the poster claims it did not say:
“....amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH
is identical with the mammalian decapeptide.....”
You can find the paper and read it yourself. If the paper was not appropriate for Pitman's conclusions drawn that is a side issue that was not MY contention or that I discussed.
“That excerpt, for example, supports the idea that the test is very good at detecting whether a substance is present. That doesn’t mean it’s any good at telling you what the substance is, or that better tests haven’t been developed in the past 30 years.”
I gave a reference (among many available if you look) that explains:
“”radioimmunoassay
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
radioimmunoassay (RIA), highly sensitive laboratory technique used to measure minute amounts of substances including antigens, hormones, and drugs present in the body. The substance or antigen (a foreign substance in the body that causes antibody production) to be measured is injected into an animal, causing it to produce antibodies. Serum containing the antibodies is withdrawn and treated with a radioactive antigen and later with a nonradioactive antigen. Measurements of the amount of radioactivity are then used to determine the amount of antigen present. The technique was developed by Solomon Berson and Rosalyn Yalow . Yalow was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her work.”
NOTICE THE WORDS “HIGHLY SENSITIVE”, “MINUTE AMOUNTS”.
The tests are specific so your statement is wrong.
If there are newer and better tests for the same thing I invite you to present them, please do but then neither I nor anyone else said there wasn't.
If the tests are to be characterized as “outdated”, “smoke signals to computers”, crude, etc. and your statement on what the results of the tests mean or don't mean then I really must ask wherein the error. If there is no error, what's your problem, if my reasoning is flawed show it, if you've citations to share, do so, but I'll not do your research for you.
My knowledge? I have very little but I do know how to find what I want to know.