Hello dear doctor,
Just woken up, so here is just a brief reply to a question you asked, having read the doubledutch:
Originally Posted by Dr. Yes
You understand it the way I do. Incidentally the Dutch
Gebeld met dr. Van Kuppeveld in Nijmegen. Ja, hij had een positief monster van het WPI ontvangen en zij hadden dit ook getest. De uitkomst: positief! Voor Van Kuppeveld het bewijs dat het met hun testtechniek wel goed zat.
means - fairly speaking: it is colloquial Dutch - that the writer or someone the writer knows (of) has phoned with Van K. who said that yes, he had received a positive sample from the WPI and that they had also tested it, and that the test was positive, which Van K. took as the proof that their own testing techniques were OK.
Summa: Van K. did not see to it this was mentioned in the "study" he co-wrote; he confirms a result of the WPI, but it is not clear whether by WPI-techniques or by Van K. techniques; and the negatives he found therefore may be due to having gotten blood from a small group of patients from long ago that in majority had no real ME at all.
If all these "if"s are correct, then I can't understand why on earth the Dutch team did not include that 'little' nugget either in their original paper or -- if they ran the test for some reason after they sent the manuscript for publication -- in an addendum or (at minimum) press release.
Well... Van K. wasn't the only author, and I am cynical enough about Van der Meer and Bleijenberg that they wanted to sink the WPI-Science-study. (Which Van K. may be innocent of - indeed, he may know little about ME, as such.)
All this needs some serious clarification (incl. better translation), of course, and especially verification of the report's accuracy.
As I said, the Dutch style is very colloquial, and in the manner of relaying a tale. The Yorkshire Gal's translation was fair enough.
"Let us first make sure the technique is good, before we fly together to capture the issue of patient selection." Wise words from Annette Whitmore. It costs the world does not!
Right, and as I said here, in a fairly thorough analysis of Wessely & McClure
Title: ME: On the postmodern falsifications in Wessely & McClures BMJ-editorial
HTH and best wishes to you, dear Doctor,