You need to be a member of CrimeSpace to add comments!
At 5:14am on September 20, 2008, David L. Hoof said…
CJ,
I'm a PhD chemist by training, and as an instrumentalist, acutely aware that in testing, you never see what you're not looking for, and even if you're looking for it, interferences may mask a valid reading. From a scientist's point of view, no reading is valid if it's not reproducible. Yet a surprising number of patients react to a single reading as gospel. There's the famous case of a New Orleans' nurse who reacted to a positive HIV test by quitting herr job and planning her 'death tour.' Turned out a second test gave a negative. In second year graduate analytical chemistry, there's an exercise where you send your university analyzed substances out to forty commercial labs and then assess the results. The most informative part of these reports is when you ask for an element that's clearly never present. Osmium, for example. And, to be pleasing or seem competent, some labs come back with numbers of osmium, some of them BIG numbers. The point is that in analysis there are sixteen generic possibilities for generating invalid numbers in any analysis. This is why you won't find any number reported for analysis in a chemistry journal that doesn't represent at least five samples. It is strange, no, that given all of these possibilities for error, from false labeling on sample taking to false reporting of a valid result to the wrong patient, that physicians aren't more skeptical, don't more often say, "Symptoms don't support this. Run it again."?
Hey, C.J. I've been meaning to drop you a note to tell you how much I enjoyed LIFELINES. You had my pulse rate way up there by the end. And you really nailed Pittsburgh. Congrats. Can't wait for the next one.
Hey CJ...I was a physician assistant before going to law school. Now I work as a prosecutor focusing in sexual assaults of child victims. Common ground...My first novel, Justice is Coming is a health care fraud case turns murder mystery. We should compare notes someday...Good luck on your projects!
Don't know if you remember me, but we met in Atlanta at the RWA conference, but I can't remember who introduced us. I still have your card too. :-)
Hope you're doing great!
Hi CJ! Glad to have you as a friend. I'm told they have a bar here! Legend has it they make a mean cybertini. I'll be having mine with a twist. Hope to see you at ThrillerFest in July! New York is hot in midsummer, but NOTHING like Phoenix. Should be one helluva time!
Hi guys! I'm still trying to get the hang of this site--thanks to Karen D for inviting me over here!
Angie, my books are due out in 2008, no firm release date yet--but I hope to hear from Berkley sometime in the next week or so with the pub date and the official title :)
CJ Lyons's Comments
Comment Wall (22 comments)
You need to be a member of CrimeSpace to add comments!
I'm a PhD chemist by training, and as an instrumentalist, acutely aware that in testing, you never see what you're not looking for, and even if you're looking for it, interferences may mask a valid reading. From a scientist's point of view, no reading is valid if it's not reproducible. Yet a surprising number of patients react to a single reading as gospel. There's the famous case of a New Orleans' nurse who reacted to a positive HIV test by quitting herr job and planning her 'death tour.' Turned out a second test gave a negative. In second year graduate analytical chemistry, there's an exercise where you send your university analyzed substances out to forty commercial labs and then assess the results. The most informative part of these reports is when you ask for an element that's clearly never present. Osmium, for example. And, to be pleasing or seem competent, some labs come back with numbers of osmium, some of them BIG numbers. The point is that in analysis there are sixteen generic possibilities for generating invalid numbers in any analysis. This is why you won't find any number reported for analysis in a chemistry journal that doesn't represent at least five samples. It is strange, no, that given all of these possibilities for error, from false labeling on sample taking to false reporting of a valid result to the wrong patient, that physicians aren't more skeptical, don't more often say, "Symptoms don't support this. Run it again."?
Hope all is well on your end.
I'll try to remember you come March. If I don't feel free to contact me again and remind me.
Unfortunately I have other commitments and I'll miss seeing you at Thrillerfest this year. And New York's my favorite city. What a bummer!
Don't know if you remember me, but we met in Atlanta at the RWA conference, but I can't remember who introduced us. I still have your card too. :-)
Hope you're doing great!
Terri
Angie, my books are due out in 2008, no firm release date yet--but I hope to hear from Berkley sometime in the next week or so with the pub date and the official title :)
Thanks for asking!
Welcome to
CrimeSpace
Sign In
CrimeSpace Google Search