You can't help being thick as pigshit. We understand.
No, it doesn't.
Because, my illiterate friend, that is how results of a study are recorded. One records the negatives as well as the positives. But I shall put the word out in the scientific community to see if we can make it easier for menopausal dingbats with a swinging fixation.
Because it's a table recording the results. Do try to keep up, dear.
Because of science, dear.
No they are not.
This is called 'calibration' and has nothing whatsoever to do with this study.
Not 'control', dear. Calibration. You are mixing up two entirely different things.
No - that's calibration, Chuckles. But nice try. Were you up all night?
Nope. Complete bollocks. The methodology is all in the paper and there is no such 'initial procedure'.
Wrapped body, dear. No contact made.
''The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse.''
All in the paper you are supposed to have read.
Nothing 'wet' was used. The paper makes that very clear
No, this is a complete falsehood and utter invention. And the stupid cow means 'calibration', not control.
Yes it is. Which was neither required nor conducted.
No, this is the complete paper and not the synopsis. There was no calibration required or performed.
No, they reported all the results.
You don't have a clue, do you?
It is the direct opposite of what you have said
That's because you are terribly, painfully stupid, Textusa.
I am happy to take anyone through the methodology of the study and explain any of the results. It's not actually a complicated design, but it's clearly too complicated for Textusa who is a famous idiot.
If anyone would like further explanation, leave a message in the comment box, you can do so anonymously.
This further load of bullshit from her just confirms that she is a liar. She doesn't understand the paper, she made a colossal error and hasn't the grace to apologise
She's back again - I left a comment which she hasn't published, but she is still trying to squirm out of it. Here's the latest
Let's try again, shall we?
Here is how the study was designed:
There is one consignment of tiles, split into three batches. All are kept in sealed, airtight containers
One batch is the control batch. Nothing is done to this batch at all. This is the equivalent of a placebo in a drug trial.
A second batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a cadaver, for either 2 or 10 minutes. We'll call these the 'contaminated by cadaver' batch.
A third batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a living person, in identical conditions - which in this case means wrapped in a cotton blanket, any punctures etc covered (full description is in the paper)
The squares are then all sealed in individual jars.
So - some jars contain a square exposed to cadaver odour
some jars contain a square exposed to odour from a living person
some jars contain a square which has not been exposed to either
The dogs were then allowed to perform a number of searches and the results recorded
The dog should only react to those jars containing a square exposed to cadaver odour.
However, in the study, there were four false positive alerts to the last category - uncontaminated squares, exposed to neither odour, living or dead.
Textusa started by claiming that all the false positive alerts were to 'contaminated by living' squares, despite the fact that, as she now admits, the paper clearly states this was not the case.
She is now falsely claiming that the false alerts took place not during the study, but during some mysterious process prior to the study, which she describes as a ''control'' although what she describes is a process of ''calibration''
There WAS NO such process.
She claims it was left out of the paper because ''it is just a synopsis''
IT IS NOT a synopsis - it is the full text of the paper.
There was no calibration as none was required. The whole study was to determine the accuracy of the dogs; in effect, what is being calibrated is the dogs!
I do not expect Textusa to understand all the language used in a scientific paper, but if she doesn't, then she shouldn't use it and she certainly cannot just make up stuff to suit her agenda
A little postscript:
The demented fraud has the sheer brass neck to demand sources and apologies! So here is my response to her, which she definitely won't print
There is an expression, Maria, which says, "When you are in a hole, stop digging"You should have stopped digging a long time ago, dear.No lab returned a positive result for blood via any swab or any method. Do feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you think you can. (Hint - you can't)As for your request for a name, you can sincerely go fuck yourself, preferably with a porcupine, and with considerable vigor.
She really doesn't know when to stop, does she?
Here is her latest:
I am not a ''self-proclaimed'' scientist. Unlike Textusa, I have actual qualifications.
Because you evidently didn't understand it, or you lied, claiming that mysterious procedures took place and the authors left them out
She then copies and pastes my description of the study method from above, so I'll delete most of that and just leave the relevant bit.
It is not clear here if she is making a statement or asking a question. There is no 'according to me' about it - that is the method. But I think the next line clears it up
Er - that's what a false positive is, you waste of human skin. A positive reaction where one should not have occurred, ie. the dog alerted to the target scent, but the jar contained an uncontaminated square.
Maria, if you don't even know what a false positive is, why are you writing about it?