Best letter on Tyler's test

[toaster]

From Wednesday's Mailbag-Velonews
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6990.0.html

Weird Science
Editors,
Re: Detection of Homologous blood doping.

I have searched the scientific literature for publications on this methodology. I have found a single publication, by Nelson et al. November 2003 Haematologica 1284-1295 in which they describe using this technology on a total of 25 patients. It appears to me that, given the difficulties in getting antibody dilutions correct for flow cytometry analysis and the relative novelty of this technology and its lack of validation in other laboratories, that this should be treated as an experimental technology. It is by no means foolproof. Using the results of such a novel technique to make decisions that threaten the career of any professional cyclist, let alone one of Tyler Hamilton's stature, is outrageous. To make such results public before further testing can be done is libelous.

Several questions must be asked at this point:

How valid is the test on a larger population of athletes and normal people?
Can the tests be reproduced in other labs not associated with the one who published the above paper?
Is there any other evidence for blood doping such as high hematocrit or large changes in hematocrit from test to test?
If the test is working is there another possible source of the homologous blood such as surgical procedures?
I hope that Tyler Hamilton can be cleared of this charge as quickly as possible and that there is no lasting taint from this scandal.
Sincerely,
David J. Heard, Ph.D (Biochemistry)
Paris France

[Dekonick]

I have not looked at this test, or its validity - but

I would be considered a fool if I treated any patient based on one single study.

If there is no literature to support this test, then it has absolutely NO validity, and is of no use. In fact, it is poor science to use a test like this without independant validation. This makes me sick. Absolutely sick if it is true.

If Tyler did use, fine. Prove it with established, validated, and accepted proceedures. I can think of MANY examples of initial studies that have "shaken the scientific community" to only be proven to be either fake, false, inaccurate, or otherwise non valid.

Shame on you for using unproven science! SHAME!

We killed alot of people - ALOT - by treating based on flawed studies from the 60's and 70's. How is this any different?

I rant on a few glasses of wine, but still if this is true its an outrage.

[jerk]

listen up,
this is not a court of law....this an independent organization....if tyler doesn't like it he doesn't have to belong or compete. he blew it. he cheated and worse than that he got caught. tough. if he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt he won't go to jail...fact of the matter is he broke the rules of the sport. all reasonable information points to tyler hamilton being a blood doper. you play with the bull sometimes you get the horns. the jerk is really mad at tyler and will probably never speak to him again.

jerk

[vaxn8r]

It's my understanding that this technology is used all the time in medicine to detect minute amounts of blood mixing in maternal/fetal hemmorhages. I may be off base here but I don't think it's experimental anymore.

[va rider]

jerk - well said!

[gasman]

Tyler probably is guilty and did dope. While a similar test has been used to detect fetal blood cells in a Mom's blood, that test was well studied and validated in peer reviewed journals before clinical use. The test used on Tyler was published in one paper with 25 patients. Most studies in medicine need to be validated with way more than 25 patients, it would be quite easy to do the test many times and get a patient population of 1,000. If any Doctor made a medical decision on one study with 25 patients and he(she) was wrong they would be crucified by their fellow physcians. There is doubt in my mind about his guilt or innocence until I see that the test really is validated. Either way he has been judged guilty by most of us already.

[shaq-d]

david heard, phd, could be an idiot who doesn't know how to use a search engine. i neither have the inclination nor the time to do such a search, but frankly, the cyclingnews story (or wherever it was) written about the doc who made the study/etc., points at a whole series of similar tests (10 years) done on hospital patients who need transfusions... and that's enough for me.

sd