Know-alls get it wrong, again...

Posted by: keymaker

Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/20/09 10:05 PM

Great! Thought they knew it all but as it turned out got it wrong - just like quite a few of us predicted.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 06:31 AM

Before you pin another ToldYaSo merit badge on your bad self, there boyscout...
Quote:
HFEA experts believe parents should be told of the concerns associated with IVF - although they emphasised that not all the risks are fully understood and more research is needed.
And...
Quote:
The HFEA will also make clear that the majority of babies born by IVF are healthy.
Well DUH! Despite many advances in the science since the 1978 birth of Louise Joy Brown, the field is still in it's infantile stages (pardon the pun) in terms of research and development. As in any technique undergoing continued development and improvement, there will be less than perfect results. And certainly there will be some abuses or irresponsible applications of the practice.

Methinks it's a bit premature to throw a wet blanket over an important sector of health and science just because a small slice of an enormous and growing body of data happens to align with your own POV. Me-also-thinks it's more than a bit ironic that you label others as "know-alls." (who of course, "got it wrong again"). I call that strutting with one shoe. That alone is worth the price of admission omission.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 06:45 AM


Your topic is misleading ~ I thought it would be an autobiography. You can't imagine my sense of relief.



Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 06:47 AM

Quote:
Thought they knew it all


Really? Or is that just your assumption?

Quote:
but as it turned out got it wrong


A 3.5% chance of defects using IVF vs. 2.5% for "regular" births hardly indicates to me that they "got it wrong" ...

Horribly written article, btw, but that's another discussion ;-)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 06:55 AM

Quote:
Horribly written article
Ah, but if it talks your particular talk, who's counting?
Quote:
but that's another discussion ;-)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 06:56 AM

Oh yes I can. grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 10:26 AM

There you go again - making me smile while I have my morning tea!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 10:29 AM

You sure it's not just gas? grin
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 12:24 PM


The two of you are a real gas! smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 12:57 PM

Quick! Light a match! blush
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 01:20 PM

Bwahahahahaha... just looking at the column on the right side of the article tells me all I need to know about this online rag.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 01:28 PM

What's so funny? That's where the real know-it-alls get their facts. There's some mighty fine meat btwn them thar lines. Yessiree! grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 05:50 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Thought they knew it all

Really?

Yep... nature has evolved a system of human reproduction over millions of years that weeds out birth defects... then certain persons come along trying to meddle with the process in a gigantic experiment that failed because they couldn't handle natural selection.

Quote:
Quote:
but as it turned out got it wrong

A 3.5% chance of defects using IVF vs. 2.5% for "regular" births hardly indicates to me that they "got it wrong" ...

The 1% difference makes it unacceptable. We shouldn't be paying for birth defects when the money could be put to better use - such as improving health care for vulnerable infants and children for example suffering from distressing conditions.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/21/09 07:37 PM

Quote:
then certain persons come along trying to meddle with the process in a gigantic experiment that failed


Your response provides no evidence either that those involved thought they "knew everything" nor that the procedure is a failure. Your article has several quotations that indicate that further study is indicated in the cause of the apparent increase in defects, which disproves your first assertion; the success rate for those who would otherwise remain barren disproves your second assertion.

Quote:
when the money could be put to better use


Is your opinion. I doubt the vast majority (i.e. those 96.5%-ish with perfectly healthy babies who would otherwise have none) would agree.

Also, it would be good if you'd provide some evidence that any public funds provided for this procedure are being diverted from other projects involving health care for children or for those suffering distressing conditions ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 01:35 AM

Quote:
Your response provides no evidence either that those involved thought they "knew everything"...

They thought they could bypass natural selection without harmful consequences. Obviously the expression was not meant to be taken literally.

Quote:
nor that the procedure is a failure.

Well, it's a failure if you accept the conclusions of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study that "birth defects occur more often among infants conceived with ART" than by natural selection. That inevitability is why quite a few of told 'em not to go down that road in the first place.

Quote:
... your opinion. I doubt the vast majority (i.e. those 96.5%-ish with perfectly healthy babies who would otherwise have none) would agree.

Nor would the others who just want to speed up conception. The whole business is about putting their personal interests above everyone else's at whatever public expense so they obviously wouldn't agree to an objective viewpoint that differed from their selfish one.

Quote:
it would be good if you'd provide some evidence that any public funds provided for this procedure are being diverted from other projects involving health care for children

Maybe it would be good but it's not my point. Whatever funds are being applied to IVF and its fallout should be diverted to helping people already afflicted by pain and suffering.

km


Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 05:33 AM

Quote:
Whatever funds are being applied to IVF and its fallout should be diverted to helping people already afflicted by pain and suffering.
So, in your mind there is — or perhaps shouldn't be — any pain or suffering felt by those those who desperately want but cannot conceive children? Parenting is a right reserved only for the fertile, or for those who can afford adoption (God only knows what you may have against that solution)?

In your mind, anyone seeking to conceive via IVF is automatically self-centered and is stealing from those who seek treatment for other illnesses?

In your mind funds put to IVF are "diverted," rather than shared or simply allocated without prejudice to any other area of medicine or health care?

In your mind, the tiny single-digit per cent of IVF children with health complications are "fallout?" Let's just toss 'em on the pile with Gays and Holocaust survivors and say they don't really exist.

"In your mind" is a place I am thankful not to be. It's a cold, dispassionate rabbit hole. Were I to effect a Keith Olbermann-like posture, I would say, You, sir, are your own fallout!"
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 05:44 AM

Quote:
Obviously the expression was not meant to be taken literally.


Live by rhetorical absolutism or die by it, I guess. If you say something so definitional as "they failed," they knew everything" or "they got it all wrong", you shouldn't be surprised if the reader might tend to take it as written rather than as "I don't really mean this but am using it for mere impact" ...

Quote:
Well, it's a failure if you accept the conclusions of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study that "birth defects occur more often among infants conceived with ART" than by natural selection.


So something is either a 100% success or a 100% failure? To me that indicates a rather limited outlook on things ...

Quote:
Nor would the others who just want to speed up conception.


Your objection here seems to be not with the procedure or to science, but to those who would make use of it contrary to your preference ... yes?

Quote:
Whatever funds are being applied to IVF and its fallout should be diverted to helping people already afflicted by pain and suffering.


Again, aside from your proposition that since the procedure has statistically minor flaws the entire thing should be abandoned, you haven't provided much of a foundation for this assertion, imo ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 06:08 AM

Quote:
So something is either a 100% success or a 100% failure? To me that indicates a rather limited outlook on things ...
The point our friend here can't or won't consider is that even if a woman conceives a child with medical complications or risks, and non-the-less loves that child unconditionally, it is a 100% success. Maybe even 110%. That may not be the most pragmatic assessment, but having unsuccessfully attempted IVF in the late 70's, I can tell you first hand that the process consists of 80% emotion and 20% science.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 08:03 AM

LOL... argue much?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 09:00 AM

Fool! He who is always right need never argue. We poor ignorant lot that know-it-not can only rail against the omnipotent intellect of the... Pffffft. You know what I mean. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 09:00 PM

Quote:
I can tell you first hand that the process consists of 80% emotion and 20% science.

That's right... and 30% more birth defects.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 10:00 PM

Quote:
Live by rhetorical absolutism or die by it, I guess.

Not really... the English language allows for both literal and figurative writing and it allows an author to mix them up,

Quote:
If you say something so definitional as "they failed," they knew everything" or "they got it all wrong", you shouldn't be surprised if the reader might tend to take it as written rather than as "I don't really mean this but am using it for mere impact" ...

Okay well taking those points in reverse order I don't remember saying "they got it all wrong" so I don't need to defend that form of words. To say "they thought they knew it all" is to say that they had some knowledge but not enough and, yes, "they failed" because they played God but brought children into the world with horrific disabilities.

Quote:
So something is either a 100% success or a 100% failure?

if one in one thousand events in an experiment is unacceptable then the experiment itself is a 100 per cent unacceptable.

Quote:
To me that indicates a rather limited outlook on things ...

Well, you're not suffering from a cleft lip caused by a mad scientist, are you.

Quote:
Your objection here seems to be not with the procedure or to science, but to those who would make use of it contrary to your preference ... yes?

No. I reject the whole idea of IVF as dangerous and unnatural... the fact that it's giving rise to birth defects is why it has to stop without further ado. There needs to be debate about the best alternative destination for the resources.

Quote:
Again, aside from your proposition that since the procedure has statistically minor flaws the entire thing should be abandoned, you haven't provided much of a foundation for this assertion, imo

Call then statistically minor flaws if you like but you're not suffering from Angelman Syndrome are you.

km

Posted by: Jim_

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 10:23 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I can tell you first hand that the process consists of 80% emotion and 20% science.

That's right... and 30% more birth defects.

km
Nice hyperbole. Since the number is 2.5% of births, then 30% of 2.5 is what? .75% of the births. .75% sounds better than a whopping 30% number, but doesn't create so much ooh ahh.

I don't believe you'd think we'd fall for that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/22/09 10:58 PM

Quote:
So, in your mind there is — or perhaps shouldn't be — any pain or suffering felt by those those who desperately want but cannot conceive children?

Desperate? A person dying of some painful disease is desperate.

Quote:
Parenting is a right reserved only for the fertile...

Correct - that's self-evident.

Quote:
..or for those who can afford adoption...

No, that's not a right - they have to be vetted to make sure they're suitable.

Quote:
In your mind, anyone seeking to conceive via IVF is automatically self-centered and is stealing from those who seek treatment for other illnesses?

Stealing? I never said that... what I said is that the resources could be put to better use.

Quote:
In your mind funds put to IVF are "diverted," rather than shared or simply allocated without prejudice to any other area of medicine or health care?

No, I'm saying they should be diverted because not all uses of public funds have equal rank. In Britain the National Health Service has finite resources so any money spent on one area of medicine necessarily prejudices another.

Quote:
In your mind, the tiny single-digit per cent of IVF children with health complications are "fallout?" .

Well "fallout" describes the bundle of unacceptable consequences... if you want to personalise them you'd call those affected, I dunno... "victims" I suppose.

Quote:
Let's just toss 'em on the pile with Gays and Holocaust survivors and say they don't really exist.

Gays and Lesbians? Holocaust survivors? What have they got to do with it? You're the one advocating birth defects not me - I'm arguing for their prevention.

Quote:
"In your mind" is a place I am thankful not to be. It's a cold, dispassionate rabbit hole.

Alright you'd spend the last £3,300 of the NHS budget on another IVF experiment with all attendant risks of human suffering and I'd spend it on providing medical care for someone already suffering - patrons can reach they're own conclusions about who's cold and dispassionate.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 12:12 AM

Quote:
Nice hyperbole. Since the number is 2.5% of births, then 30% of 2.5 is what? .75% of the births. .75% sounds better than a whopping 30% number

Not to me it doesn't - it sounds the same, but actually the numbers are 2.5 per cent birth defects in the general population and 3.5 per cent in ART cases which was headlined as 30 per cent more but is actually 40 per cent more.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) say that about 20 per cent of ART procedures result in births so if the article's right that there are more than 10,000 such births in Britain every year there would be 50,000 procedures. Okay shoot, what have we got... of the 10,000 ART births in Britain every year 1 per cent or 1,000 are born with the kind of horrific avoidable disabilities described in the survey.

The annual total cost of the treatments would be about 50,000 @ £3,300 or £165,000,000 so the cost of each disabled child works out at at about £1,650,000 not counting after care costs. Absolutely bizarre - spending public money creating disablement when health funds are supposed to prioritise medical cures and treatments.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 01:05 AM

Quote:
of the 10,000 ART births in Britain every year 1 per cent or 1,000 are born with the kind of horrific avoidable disabilities described in the survey.

1 per cent of 10,000 is 100, not 1,000. No-one wishes it on even 1.

Speaking as someone with a disability (probably caused by cosmic particles - some cell failing to divide when I was -6 months old popped me out with some missing muscles), your life is what you and those around you make it. Having life is a pretty good opportunity.

I suspect that of those 100 births involving disabilities, there's a whole range from minor to major, many not requiring loads of expensive care.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 03:07 AM

Quote:
1 per cent of 10,000 is 100, not 1,000. No-one wishes it on even 1.

Whoops! - Okay, 100 cases every year.

Quote:
life is what you and those around you make it

Quite agree... everything should be done to prevent a handicap or inhibit any detriment from it but if it's unavoidable one needs to handle it as best one can with all the support that can be offered.

Quote:
I suspect that of those 100 births involving disabilities, there's a whole range from minor to major, many not requiring loads of expensive care.

I don't think anyone knows the cost of that.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 03:43 AM

You know, these and all the other arguments you've puked up in this thread only confirm that you were born with neither sole nor compassion nor imagination. To what do we attribute so many birth defects in one body? Up 'til now you've been entertaining in an annoying way. Sometimes marginally thought-provoking. After this thread, I find you only pitiable.

Yes. That's a totally personal response. Not whit of fact or statistical content in it. But why waste time presenting realities that you will only refute since they are never consistent with what you "know" to be the only "truth" in your poorly ventilated mind.

You'll call it a personal attack. I call it your biography.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 04:17 AM

I thought you were a clear communicator? I 've got no idea from that ridiculous response what part of my post you're taking issue with; whether you're disputing a 100 birth defect cases every year, whether you agree that number but find it acceptable... or generally wtf you're going on about other than apparently trying to prevail in a discussion with non-specific smear generalisations?

Quote:
You know, these and all the other arguments you've puked up in this thread only confirm that you were born with neither sole nor compassion nor imagination.

Oh yeah, I want to stop 100 birth defects every year in Britain and I lack compassion - you on the other hand piously shake your head at the fallout offering no comfort to the afflicted whatsoever, knowing that the resources could be applied to end intolerable suffering of children already in need, and all of a sudden you're Mr. Imagination. No one's going to buy that.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 04:34 AM

So far all there's been is statistical research suggesting that among children conceived through IVF there's a slightly higher instance of birth defects than otherwise.

There's no clear indication as to why this is, whether the cause is the IVF, or whether, for example, it's connected with the parents' inability to conceive in the more usual manner, or a host of other possible contributive causes - what are the lifestyles of the parents, what is the pollution level where they live, diet, weather patterns (don't laugh at that one - people who are born nearer the poles and were carried through winter are statistically more likely to be schizophrenic - it's a sunshine thing) etc. etc. Has this trend increased, decreased, stayed the same, since IVF was first introduced?

Statistics have a tendency to hang over the edge of facts like a muffin-top, implying that they are telling us a lot more than they are really capable of doing. It should be a cause for concern if IVF pregnancies have a slightly higher tendency to result in birth defects, but there's loads more work to be done before any fingers get pointed.

Meanwhile, 9,900 children born without disabilities, who would not otherwise be born. 100 born with a greater or lesser range of disabilities, who would not otherwise be born - and any of whom (statistically speaking) might have been born with disabilities anyway. If the goal of the experiment is 100% success, then it has yet to reach that goal (as has 'natural' conception), but it is obviously not a 100% failure in the meantime.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 05:06 AM

I wouldn't describe a 40 per cent increased incidence as 'slight' but 'quite substantial'. Nature selects the strongest sperm of millions to fertilise the safest egg whereas the mad scientist thinks that any old sperm or egg is good enough for the experiment. It's morally irresponsible for that community to go off on some wild goose chase trying to find some other explanation for the defects when it's right there under their noses knowing that more and more infants are going to be born with horrific disabilities using funds that are being denied to those in really desperate need.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 05:13 AM

Thank you for helping me make my case. Your response is as myopic, as egocentric, and as masturbatory as any you've ever made. I really do question you humanity — and your ability to recognize any sound or thought other than the troublesome static btwn your ears.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 05:26 AM

Quote:
Thank you for helping me make my case. Your response is as myopic, as egocentric, and as masturbatory as any you've ever made. I really do question you humanity — and your ability to recognize any sound or thought other than the troublesome static btwn your ears.

So the particular point you disagree with is... ?

km
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 05:37 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
In your mind, the tiny single-digit per cent of IVF children with health complications are "fallout?"


On any other subject, a one percent variance would be declared statistically insignificant. Here it's touted as a 30% increase. The article is yet another tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 05:42 AM

This thread should be relabeled, "the use and misuse of data and percents in biology. When I first saw the 30% I knew it was a secondary number derived from a small increase. A small increase that takes in all IVF data from the beginning and in fact weighted for the early IVF because some birth defects take a long time to show up. The number has built in a percent of birth defects in IVF today which likely will not occur. So the misuse of taking a one percent jump and making it into a 30% increase is laughable because the one percent is likely not real**. But to do it with a biological entity is obscene. Even a true 30% increase is hardly a blip if speaking of data derived from defects in humans.

So I give the article an A in fear mongering and an F in scientific worthiness. I could offer up anecdotal experiences with several IVF children, my daughter for one, that makes this data and the argument it puts forth as foolish but it is only anecdotal. When a child is born there are all sorts of odds for birth defects. A one percent chance is lost in the much larger numbers. Now if I was told my daughter had a one percent chance of being a lawyer, kill me now. [tongue]

** For more on why these data are lying at face value read Stephen Jay Gould's The Median Isn't the Message.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 06:00 AM

Here we go with red circles and arrows again. Just for you... I disagree with your entire position on this issue. I find it distasteful, disdainful, dismissive, and frankly, disgusting. You have not presented a single point that I find palatable. And if you think I'm going to waste my time trying to explain the obvious to the oblivious (that would be you, in case one more red arrow is needed), think again. But perhaps if I couch my opinion in your own dialect, you might get it: You're wrong again!


Nah, you still won't get it.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 10:51 AM

Quote:
The number has built in a percent of birth defects in IVF today which likely will not occur. So the misuse of taking a one percent jump and making it into a 30% increase is laughable because the one percent is likely not real

Complete rubbish, with respect. Multiple births remain the biggest risk with fertility treatment and its about time that we were more explicit about the dangers of IVF in that respect. The chances of a baby dying before birth or in his or her first week of life is four times higher in twins and seven times higher in triplets. You might benefit from the original report and having read it consider why informed scientific opinion is at variance with your own.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 10:52 AM

Quote:
On any other subject, a one percent variance would be declared statistically insignificant.

Sampling errors don't apply here because the survey analysed birth defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study over a 6 year period and used multiple logistic regression to adjust for confounders.

Quote:
Here it's touted as a 30% increase.

As I said elsewhere it's more like a 40 per cent increase... which is highly significant of course.

Quote:
The article is yet another tempest in a teapot.

Not really... the warnings are those of experts namely scientists from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and happen to reinforce the warnings of other experts worldwide that ART increases the risk of serious disorders. Those include genetic damage to the unborn child and nuerological conditions such as cerebral palsy for example being three times more probable with IVF than with other children as well as posing dangers to the participants themselves such as an increased risk of ovarian cancer in woman undergoing such procedures.

I dare say there are some who have been taken in by the propaganda of clinics which make most of their money from failure and so may be inclined to deliberately suppress information which threatens their commercial interests. Informed opinion however is more discerning.

km
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Sampling errors don't apply here because the survey analysed birth defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study over a 6 year period and used multiple logistic regression to adjust for confounders.


"U.S. research involving nearly 20,000 births published this year . . . "

Unless they included ALL births and ALL birth defects, sampling errors would most definitely apply.

"The scientists from the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta looked at more than 13,500 births and a further 5,000 control cases using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study".

So the CDC didn't even do their own "research". Even more chance for sampling errors.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 11:23 AM

This guy makes me yearn for the days of Testagent and his ilk...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 11:54 AM

Quote:
"U.S. research involving nearly 20,000 births published this year . . . "

You're quoting from a detail that had nothing to do with the survey although as it happens it's pretty damning of the conclusion you're advancing - that there are no dangers worth a warning.

"IVF babies twice as likely to have heart defects and four and a half times as susceptible to digestive tract disorders... 3.7 times the risk of bowel disorders and four times more likely to have a cleft lip... a survey of births in Australia showed a two fold increase in the risk of major birth defects..." and so on..."

Quote:
Unless they included ALL births and ALL birth defects, sampling errors would most definitely apply.

Given the high failure rate 20,000 was probably all births from about 100,000 attempts. Either way they're clearly convinced that people need to be warned about the dangers.

Quote:
So the CDC didn't even do their own "research". Even more chance for sampling errors.

Obviously the most accurate research would access official statistics - their role was to apply a rigorous scientific analysis thereof and reach conclusions thereon. Let's be honest - persons considering such a procedure would be more interested in what impartial experts have to say than in the guesswork you lot are all straining to advance a Mac forum.

km


Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 12:24 PM

You're right, what I posted was complete rubbish about them using all IVF numbers and so they were weighting the study including all of the startup IVF . The study used 1997 to 2003. My mistake. But since you posted a link to the original paper I read it.

All I can say is that the conclusions in the paper might be true but what you think they concluded is false.

They just got over the threshold so they think that IVF should carry a warning. Sure, since everything else carries a warning and anyone submitting to IVF has to sign so many an extra one will do exactly nothing. As it should since this effect they are measuring is so small.

Between their controls and their samples they have to use multiple logistic regression to normalize a few things. They have to take into account maternal age, ethnicity, education of parents, income and quite a few other things. Why do you think they have to negate those effects? Answer: because all of those factors contributes more to birth defects than the thing they think they are measuring, the actual use of IVF. Since those other factors carry more effect should we warn people who are not white, rich, and educated against giving birth at all? You might have some trouble with that one.

There are two other glaring problems which they mention in the conclusion but sort of sigh about, they cannot negate. One is ascertainment bias problem. I know for a fact, as you should, that an IVF baby is going to be looked at post natally much more than any other baby. Because the baby (using their data) is born to white non hispanic, upper income, educated parents. They will bring their kid in for minor hyper spadious while a poorer child it is ignored. Or a slight cleft pallet. They admit they cannot control for this although this ascertainment bias could account for all of their elevated numbers.

Two: They do not discern why this effect could be happening. I could come up with several which would not make me a know it al nor would any of them make me not want to try IVF.

nb: Your conclusion that it is multiple births that is the casue is proven false in the paper. That is about the only thing they could conclude definitively.

One last note directly from the paper:
Quote:

Our findings could have been because of underlying infertility, small numbers or chance.


Good gravy that is an amazing conclusion. But it is the lot in life of epidemiological studies like this using humans as data. Let's parse that three part conclusion by the authors:

1) Underlying infertility: Well gee, maybe. Given that the parents are presently infertile do you think they would risk this 1.5% extra chance of a birth defect?

2) Small numbers: Holy cow are they small. The N is pretty small but the numbers of actual children with IVF and birth defects are really really small and they do not give actual p-values. Which leads to:

3) The conclusion could be based on chance. So small that one baby detected with a very minor birth defect but because the mother is loaded they report and fix the cleft palate which is just barely cleft while just one baby missed who is poor and black and cleft palate screws the whole pooch on this study. This is one of the major flaws of the study. They don't figure out the proper p-values or at least I just cannot understand what they are doing when they produce p-values that are < 0.00 for traits of the participants but don't create p-values for the results themselves. My only conclusion is that the p-values of the conclusions support random chance as much as their conclusions.

If this was a study using mice the whole thing would be thrown out as nonsense because the error bars and standard deviation is much larger than any conclusion they think they made.

So you were right about my last post but I agree with your sentiments just the wrong target. This study is complete rubbish. But it was an interesting read. I love to tease epidemiologists that they are not real scientists and that Political Science has more science in it than what they do. I'll use this study. Thank you.



Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 12:55 PM

Quote:
if one in one thousand events in an experiment is unacceptable then the experiment itself is a 100 per cent unacceptable.


Your presumption here is that the one event is unacceptable ... I don't think that holds true for our society today.

Quote:
I reject the whole idea of IVF as dangerous and unnatural... the fact that it's giving rise to birth defects is why it has to stop without further ado.


Noted. I disagree. Although I wish you had presented your position thusly in your opening post as it might have generated a more focused and interesting discussion rather than one mainly about statistics ...

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 01:02 PM

Quote:
Your conclusion that it is multiple births that is the casue is proven false in the paper. That is about the only thing they could conclude definitively.

Not really - from the paper:

"In this study, 23.4% of all twins occurred following ART. Thus, ART might contribute to the risk of major birth defects both directly by increasing the risk of defects among singletons and indirectly by increasing the occurrence of twinning which is a strong risk factor for many types of major birth defects (Li et al., 2003; Tang et al., 2006). Even if the additional impact of any risk posed by ART is negligible among the already high-risk multiple births, the strong association between ART, as practiced in the USA, and multiple birth should nonetheless be considered as another pathway through which ART might indirectly contribute to birth defect risk."

Quote:
I know for a fact, as you should, that an IVF baby is going to be looked at post natally much more than any other baby.

That was the whole point of applying multiple logistic regression adjustments - these guys are not amateurs but leading experts in the field which is why their conclusions are being taken seriously where it counts - such as with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Accordingly HFEA has emphasised the dangers of multiple births from IVF on its web site as a matter of statistical fact for example that cerebral palsy is five times higher for twins and 18 times higher for triplets than among other children.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 01:53 PM

I guess I agree with your first point which I did not understand. That an increase in IVF will increase twins and that this may be the cause of all of the additional birth defects. I got that. I thought you were arguing that IVF caused birth defects. It doesn't. The ever so slight increase of 1.5% could be caused by twinning.

You then say these guys (although the first author I know is a women) are not amateurs. Correct. That is why you should read what they say in their conclusion which is that all of what they are reporting could be because of low numbers, or by chance. Or it all could be associated with multiple births. But again, the numbers are really too low to conclude much of anything except when couched in terms of "might" and "could".

They are not amateurs but they spent a lot of money on this study and need to publish thus we get papers that are very inconclusive unless read by people who do not understand the statistics and conclude that something worth talking about and their worst fears are being realized.

Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I reject the whole idea of IVF as dangerous and unnatural..
Your argument from the beginning would have been clearer if you presented this early on. Fear of man messing in God's domain or "unnatural" acts is a normal response to something new and thus "abnormal".

I disagree that IVF is in any way unnatural. There is no use arguing that point as it is to discuss how many angels on the head of a pin. And this paper in no way raises the issue of "dangerous" when speaking of 1.5% increases of minor birth defects during child birth. By your criteria breathing is dangerous and thus we should be suing anyone who forces a dutch oven upon us. I think I need to sue my wife right now.
Posted by: MacBozo

Off-topic - 03/23/09 02:40 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
I think I need to sue my wife right now.

Considering that she holds all of your assets, it could be possible. I know when I got married, everything became hers and ours - and ours is also hers by default. laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 02:58 PM

Quote:
By your criteria breathing is dangerous

Not particularly... playing God with a biology set is what's dangerous and as a result children are being born with horrific disabilities.

Quote:
I disagree that IVF is in any way unnatural.

phOhyeah... some crank comes along with a test tube after 350 million years of births by natural selection of the strongest sperm and you buy his random sperm experiment as a natural process? In vitro means taking place in a test tube outside of a living organism - what's so natural about that?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 03:22 PM

Quote:
I thought you were arguing that IVF caused birth defects. It doesn't.

It does. HFEA say that multiple births are the biggest risk, not the only risk. Significant risks to both parent and child are caused by the procedures themselves.

Quote:
The ever so slight increase of 1.5% could be caused by twinning.

I believe the increase is 1 per cent over the normal rate of 2.5 per cent which is a 40 per cent increase in risk.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase

I disagree that IVF is in any way unnatural. There is no use arguing that point as it is to discuss how many angels on the head of a pin.


On "natural," been there and done that with KM. Don't try it . . . you'll get nausea from the spin.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 10:13 PM

Quote:
you'll get nausea from the spin.

Nausea trying to make out that some third party in the lab is part of a natural process of conception, more like. Got any other untenable propositions?

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 11:06 PM

Having a teflon coronary stent put into your failed artery is unnatural. A pig valve to replace a heart valve is very unnatural. Chemo therapy, radioactive seed implant into your cancerous prostate, or prostate surgery is unnatural. Using synthetic antibiotics is unnatural. Removing your ruptured appendix is unnatural. Setting your shattered ankle with steel pins is unnatural. All of these things which would keep you alive so you can continue to entertain us here are done by third parties doing unnatural acts.

Or are they completely natural in your book? What is the book of unnatural acts that you turn to in cases like this and who writes it? Is it white heterosexual men with fertile wives that write it or is it just you?

And don't keep harping about this addition of 2% birth defects as fall back. All of those surgeries incur a much higher incidence of mortality while they are occurring. Much higher than this feeble, as the authors call it, "could be random it's so low" number in this article.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/23/09 11:59 PM

Well, I'm all in favour of unnatural procedures that ease pain and suffering but I'm against those that increase it like ART does. Proponents of ART are basically saying that birth defects are acceptable because the benefits to parents outweigh the disbenefits to mothers and to those children born with disabilities. I would put it the other way around. As far as mothers are concerned there are far more traumas and disappointments than success storiies and babies are not consulted about whether they would mind being born with a serious abnormality. In terms of competing priorities for public resources overpopulation of the planet can only continue to cause ever increasing levels of misery for many species including man so other under-funded medical claims on those resources should come first. What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what. If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:13 AM

Quote:
What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what.


NCI page on colon and rectal cancer

Funding

Quote:
If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF.


Overall US survival rate for colon cancer is 64.4%, not <20% ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:46 AM

Quote:
What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what. If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF.
You need some air holes in that bubble you're living in.

Individuals here have shot gaping holes in your premise and the tabloid bunk you base it on — at least one of those individuals being uniquely qualified on the personal and professional levels with IVF and bio-science in general — and yet anything but your own opinion is "rubbish" according to you.

It's one thing to argue the morality of an issue from a personal perspective. You and you alone can and should be be the expert on your own set of ideals. But it's quite another thing to blindly rebuff those who argue from an intimate knowledge of the realities of said issue. You, like anyone else must respect the documented expertise of those on the other side of the issue. But you don't/won't/can't. I may not always be right. But I'm never wrong." sick

Yet another hearing of The Cases In Your Head®.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 07:33 AM

Your links prove only that too many people are dying of colonic cancer - about 50,000 per year in the USA alone.

Quote:
Overall US survival rate for colon cancer is 64.4%, not <20% ...

I didn't put a percentage on colonic cancer survival rates but if it's only 64.40 per cent that's not good enough. Sufficient screening could reduce the death toll by one half and since there are 50,000 colonic cancer deaths in the US every year 25,000 of 'em are avoidable. The same distortion of priorities applies in the UK where colorectal cancer deaths are running at 16,000 per year while essential life-saving drugs like Erbitux are being denied to sufferers for want of funds.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 07:49 AM

Quote:
Individuals here have shot gaping holes in your premise...

No I filled all those in... with interest.

Quote:
...and the tabloid bunk you base it on

What, you mean the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and the National Birth Defects Prevention Study? Or did you mean the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)?

Quote:
it's quite another thing to blindly rebuff those who argue from an intimate knowledge of the realities of said issue.

That's the whole point - everything I've said has been based on such opinions... I don't limit myself to what Mac users think but extend my inquiries to what patients and experts in the field have had to say as well.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 08:54 AM

Sorry, dude, you filled those holes in with nothing more than mental spackle.
But, at least someone is buying your baloney. Even if that someone is thee. BTW, love the reference to Mac users. There's real relevance there. And I'd love to see the list of your "focus group" respondents. Carry on, Mr. Natural.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 09:55 AM

Quote:
mental spackle

I like the way that rolls off the tongue (that would be a healthy tongue of course).
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 10:49 AM

Quote:
I'd love to see the list of your "focus group" respondents

Not a problem...

Nuala Scarisbrick

Dr Simon Fishel

Catherine Bennett

Angela Richardson

Liz Tiberis

Mike Kremer

Daniel Edelstein

CDCP

HFEA

NICE

But you'll need a more open mind than what you've shown so far to profit from their contributions to the debate.

km

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 11:30 AM

Quote:
Your links prove only that too many people are dying of colonic cancer


Your stated nothing was being done or funded. This is patently false.

Quote:
I didn't put a percentage on colonic cancer survival rates


You stated "the survival rate would be more than the 20% success rate of IVF". The links I provided indicate rates are already well above that figure, so that statement was incorrect as well.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 01:27 PM

Quote:
Your stated nothing was being done or funded. This is patently false.

False if you take it literally, true if you read it figuratively to the effect that 'nothing sufficient' is being done. If tens of thousands of sufferers are dying for want of sufficient screening or drugs then that's quite obviously of greater urgency than mere lifestyle treatments - important though they may be in isolation.

Quote:
You stated "the survival rate would be more than the 20% success rate of IVF".

My comment had nothing to do with existing survival rates among sufferers of colonic cancer - that's your misreading of it. Current death rates could be cut in half so, yes, a 50 per cent success rate in the threatened group would be greater than a 20 per cent success rate among the lifestyle group.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 02:35 PM

Told you the ol' noggin would go spinning.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 02:40 PM

Stare into my hat. Let yourself go limp. Ahhhhhh. Now repeat after me: km is never wrong. km is never wrong. km is never wrong...


Ok, I think our time is up now. Make an appointment for next week on your way out.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 02:54 PM

Quote:

False if you take it literally, true if you read it figuratively


Can we work out some kind of sign so we know when you are speaking literally and when you are speaking figuratively?

How about this one for literally
and this one for figuratively
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 02:54 PM

Quote:
Told you the ol' noggin would go spinning.

Noggin? Spinning? Ph...

Spinning's got nothing to do with it, mate - my posts are all based upon reasonable assertions of fact - which is rather inconvenient for you of course.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 02:58 PM

Quote:
Can we work out some kind of sign so we know when you are speaking literally and when you are speaking figuratively?

No we can't, actually... follow the theme for a change and you'll discover that the point survives whichever way you read it.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:07 PM



laugh laugh laugh

(Smiling over my iced tea, go figure! wink )




Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:32 PM

All I can say is two things, both from the Bard:

1) Nature needs not gorgeous what thou gorgeous wearest.
2) There is no art but nature makes that art.

Spin away.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:47 PM

yoyo. His handle is yoyo.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 03:54 PM

Yeah, Lester. Follow the theme. Its got lotsa points! laugh

Posted by: DLC

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 04:08 PM

Reading some of these threads lately Steve, I think I've been stranded on Rua-puke Island !! wink
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 04:09 PM

Quote:
What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what. If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF"


Quote:
My comment had nothing to do with existing survival rates among sufferers of colonic cancer - that's your misreading of it.


My apologies for equating "hit rate" with "survival rate", and for not recognizing when that referred back to "sufferers of colonic cancer" you weren't really talking about ... sufferers of colonic cancer.

Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 04:12 PM

Hell of a lot cheaper than a week at Six Flags, but ya get just as dizzy! grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 10:23 PM

Quote:
My apologies for equating "hit rate" with "survival rate", and for not recognizing when that referred back to "sufferers of colonic cancer" you weren't really talking about ... sufferers of colonic cancer.

If you read my statement again carefully you'll see that I was referring to possible hit rates for colonic cancer treatments rather than historic ones. The issue always was and remains quite straightforward - inadequate public funding for sufferers of colonic cancer. You lot want to get your priorities right, mate - people are dying while funds are being poured into mainly unsuccessful lifestyle treatments like IVF with all the grotesque consequences that go with it.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/24/09 11:36 PM

Quote:
If you read my statement again carefully you'll see that I was referring to possible hit rates for colonic cancer treatments rather than historic ones.


I read all 31 words of your statement -- nowhere did the word "possible" appear, nor was it implied. Seriously, if you meant "possible" you should have said so. Or were you being figurative again? It's difficult to tell these days when you keep redefining what you actually write.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:28 AM

Quote:
I I read all 31 words of your statement -- nowhere did the word "possible" appear, nor was it implied.

I said "If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF"

"if" clearly means that higher than a 20 per cent hit rate is possible among the target group. As I have pointed out the target group is obviously those who are dying of colonic cancer not those being cured of it. I put figures on that in subsequent posts. The statement remains true - fiunds going into colonic cancer would produce a higher hit rate among the target group than the same funds going into IVF.

Quote:
Or were you being figurative again?

Mixtiure as it happens - "nothing being done" was figurative and "more than pathetic 20 per cent hit rate" was literal.

Quote:
It's difficult to tell these days when you keep redefining what you actually write.

Just putting you right on your misinterpretation of what I said - that's not re-defining. The idea is to shift the funds going into the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate for IVF over to the 98 per cent hit rate possible, yes, possible, for sufferers of colonic cancer.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 01:10 AM

Quote:
"if" clearly means that higher than a 20 per cent hit rate is possible among the target group.


Seriously, if this is the point we've gotten to, we're into a Clintonian dissection of an argument, which is just silly ...

Which also makes this thread pretty meaningless at this point, since once again we've devolved into semantics rather than actual substance. I get that you disapprove of IVF on the grounds of your personal code of ethics, which I respect. The frustrating part is that most of the discussions I have with you hinge on what you write rather than what you claim to mean -- we've gotten to the point of trying to define what you meant by "if", in this case, which is pretty inane ...

Perhaps it's just your style I find frustrating, but it really does seem to me you usually open with a fairly terse statement meant to generate a reaction more than an actual discussion of your position. And that the threads get so involved seem to me more a result of discussion of those simplistic reductions, and others you frequently inject into threads, that apparently require a rather extensive interpretation on the part of the reader, than of a give-and-take of the actual issue involved.

Again, this may just be a conflict between your style of online conversation and mine, but I don't seem to be the only one here who "misinterprets" what you write on a fairly consistent basis.

Just sayin', as our friend Steve likes to say =)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 09:46 AM

Quote:
I was referring to possible hit rates for colonic cancer treatments rather than historic ones


Perhaps we could have a sign for when you mean "possible" (read may or man not happen or able to happen-although not certain to happen), "rather than historic" (read notable/significant in history or factual past events).

Maybe the signs could be.....oh nevermind.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 09:49 AM

Quote:
I said "If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF"


"If" my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bus.

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 09:51 AM

km-this is unraveling like a very old knitted sweater.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 10:33 AM

This thread is like Penelope's sweater. Penelope would not have to tediously unravel if it wasn't for the suitors.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:32 AM

Quote:
Which also makes this thread pretty meaningless at this point, since once again we've devolved into semantics rather than actual substance

The substance has obviously been about the best use of public funds specifically as between IVF treatments and the prevention of life threatening conditions such as colonic cancer. Personally I believe the case for the former compared to the latter is so weak that if it were my decision I'd withdraw all funding for IVF and transfer it to mainstream health priorities. In that regard there should be ways as in times past for couples to accept that they can't have children in an honourable way. The semantic discussion was not of my choosing, of course, but I will make one concession - that when I looked again at my statement I could see how you could interpret it in the way you did. Nevertheless, the intended meaning was that which I've put forward by way of explanation.

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:36 AM

Just how many other discoveries/advancements have been made in embryonic research that IVF may have triggered? Would you cut off that funding as well?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:37 AM

Quote:
but I will make one concession


Hallelujah!


Just having some fun with you km; hope you are smiling.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:39 AM

The only thing unravelling is your acceptance of lifestyle treatments having priority over mainstream health treatments.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:43 AM

Quote:
Hallelujah!

Hallelujah? What, have just come back from church or something?

Quote:
Just having some fun with you km; hope you are smiling.

Always. smirk

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:50 AM

Quote:
how many other discoveries/advancements have been made in embryonic research that IVF may have triggered? Would you cut off that funding as well?

Yep, the whole lot of it. Animal experiments are even less justified than human ones in my opinion but in any event there are higher priorities for all such resources.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 11:53 AM

Good.

Now back to business; and it is fair to say your acceptance of mainstream health treatments should have priority over (your so-called) lifestyle treatments. In both cases we are really talking about individuals. How can you claim one individuals "treatment" is more important than his/her neighbours?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:05 PM

Quote:
How can you claim one individuals "treatment" is more important than his/her neighbours?

Because witholding lifestyle treatments is not the end of the world whereas witholding life-saving treatments is - literally, for all those concerned. The side effects and failure rates of IVF disqualify it as a good use of funds compared to safe and successful medical treatments that are starved of funds. In the UK even improving the attention given to millions of A&E patients checking in with minor wounds and injuries is a higher priority than lifestyle treatments because that's really what we're all paying for.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:13 PM

Quote:
In that regard there should be ways as in times past for couples to accept that they can't have children in an honourable way.
Not much mystery about your meaning there. I wonder how "honored" you parents are to have given birth to a dispassionate, egocentric bigot. Or did you come off one of those Friday afternoon assembly lines?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:17 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Just having some fun with you km; hope you are smiling.

Always. smirk
I suspect it's gas. Always.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:49 PM

Quote:
Quote:
In that regard there should be ways as in times past for couples to accept that they can't have children in an honourable way.

I wonder how "honored" you parents are to have given birth to a dispassionate, egocentric bigot.

Dispassionate? Egocentric bigot? No, I just put that forward because it was the opinion of one of the world's leading experts in the field - Professor Ian Craft of the London Gynaecology and Fertility Centre. There may be a bigot around but I don't think it's him and I don't think it's me.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:54 PM

Quote:
I suspect it's gas

Not 'round here it's not.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 12:56 PM

Quote:
witholding lifestyle treatments is not the end of the world


It is for that individual and "literally, for all those concerned"-immediate family, extended family, friends and any stranger considering the same treatment. We quite possibly are talking hundreds of people affected by this treatment.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:01 PM

Quote:
It is for that individual...

I think I understand your point - babies suffering from gastroschisis for example can't really expect us to pay for dialysis machines to save their lives when it would be the end of the world, so to speak, for infertile couples if we didn't use the money for IVF treatment?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:07 PM

I wouldn't expect you to get it. I wouldn't expect you to begin to understand or care about the insult and disdain you've aimed at those who cannot conceive "naturally", yet have as much right to parenthood as those who can just blink and pop out a child at will. I wouldn't expect you to get that couples who are willing to employ extraordinary measures to start a family are especially deserving because they are making an especially deliberate and considered decision to bring children into the world. But unfortunately, without at least some subsidy, those measures remain accessible only to certain economic profiles. I wouldn't expect you to get that parenthood is a right that every couple is due. Heterosexual couples, same sex couples, single parents. Natural conception, adoption, and IVF.

I repeat: dispassionate, egocentric bigot.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
It is for that individual...

I think I understand your point - babies suffering from gastroschisis for example can't really expect us to pay for dialysis machines to save their lives when it would be the end of the world, so to speak, for infertile couples if we didn't use the money for IVF treatment?

km


And the proof of this is where?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:20 PM

Quote:
And the proof of this is where?

In the link, last paragraph:

"But if we had a machine that we could use much more freely, then we would be able to deal with many more babies and have a much greater chance of saving lives."

It's only an example of course - there are any number of deaths linked to lack of NHS funds.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:24 PM

But you don't really know there is not more money because of IVF.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:32 PM

I don't believe he's as bothered by the money nearly as much as the fact that IVF is... you know... UNNATURAL! *dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn* shocked
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:33 PM

Quote:
But you don't really know there is not more money because of IVF.

As a matter of fact I do. The NHS has a fixed budget allocated according to decisions made by NICE so we know that people are dying of colonic cancer for example who could be saved by funds going into ART.

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 02:56 PM

Then there would be no embryonic stem cell research allowed in your world?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 03:04 PM

Quote:
Then there would be no embryonic stem cell research allowed in your world?

That's right... that's old hat now because things have moved on to more ethical stem cell research.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
But you don't really know there is not more money because of IVF.

As a matter of fact I do. The NHS has a fixed budget allocated according to decisions made by NICE so we know that people are dying of colonic cancer for example who could be saved by funds going into ART.

km




By george, I think we've got it.

km you stated "if it were my decision I'd withdraw all funding for IVF and transfer it to mainstream health priorities."


and this quote from the site you note;

Twenty-five years ago a treatment was developed - IVF - and through the intervening years it has been successfully honed and eventually accepted by mainstream medical practitioners the world over as an evidence-based option for a clinically untreatable condition.


So all is well with the world - IVF is mainstream.

Whew! I'm glad we have this one cleared up.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 03:16 PM

Too bad, too. Because it may have led to a cure for him. laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 03:28 PM

Quote:
So all is well with the world - IVF is mainstream.

You're getting confused between "mainstream medical practitioners" which is the profession at large and "mainstream health priorities" which refers to clinically treatable conditions.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 03:34 PM

So "mainstream medical practitioners" concern themselves with what health prioities?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/25/09 09:24 PM

All of 'em. sick

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 01:57 PM

Quote:
I repeat: dispassionate, egocentric bigot.

Yeah, we know you are... because you couldn't care less about patients contracting killer diseases like C. difficile in hospital or those being operated on with mice running amok in theatre while other members of the Limitless Resources Society are demanding lifestyle treatments from funds that could be used to clean up the wards.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 02:14 PM

Neither of the articles you linked cite a lack of funds as causing either situation ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 02:30 PM

Quote:
Neither of the articles you linked cite a lack of funds as causing either situation ...

Oh don't worry - there's definitely a lack of funds... mainly for training and employment of suitable staff at all levels but partly for research and materials to ensure that the wards are disinfected and vermin eradicated from operating theatres.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 03:03 PM


Sounds like a management problem, not a funding problem. A sterile environment isn't expensive, and it shouldn't be expensive to train staff to follow basic cleanliness procedures. Same thing with rats and mice.

Both of your examples are, really, pitiful, made more so that it took you 24 hours to come up with them as some kind of rebuttal.

You really do obsess on winning an argument. Shame that your desire to do so obliterates your ability to see that your rationalizations get thinner and lamer with every try. End result ~ You not only don't win the argument(s), your desperation to do so costs you respect and credibility with the present audience.

Bummer, huh?




Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 04:31 PM

Oh good answer — for a 7-year-old. I know you are but what am I? Nya nya nya.

As to proper facility sterilization and hygiene, one of my clients distributes products and equipment globally for precisely that purpose. I don't believe they're reps have ever been told, "No reorders this month, chap. Too many nasty little IVF rug rats to breed for dishonorable couples, y'know."

Man, when you have to reach that far, you really do fall off the ladder (and I certainly hope there are enough funds to put ice on that bump on your head).
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 04:34 PM

Quote:
your desperation to do so costs you respect and credibility with the present audience.
Reminds me of the old shtick:

Q. You don't love me any more?
A. What "anymore"?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 06:26 PM

Quote:
Oh good answer — for a 7-year-old. I know you are but what am I? Nya nya nya.


Haven't heard that one in decades. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/26/09 11:43 PM

Quote:
Sounds like a management problem, not a funding problem.

A management problem is a funding problem.

Quote:
24 hours to come up with them as some kind of rebuttal.

Personal insults are a low priority. But if response times are your concern I notice everyone went very quiet after I posted that colonic cancer correspondence and mentioned that home-made infant dialysis machine... and I'll tell you why as well - because they don't want to admit that dealing with those problems should be a higher priority than IVF.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 12:24 AM

Quote:
As to proper facility sterilization and hygiene, one of my clients distributes products and equipment globally for precisely that purpose. I don't believe they're reps have ever been told...

We could be interested. Could you ask him what he'd recommend for dealing with the MRSA or Clostridium difficile superbugs? Of the 100,000 who catch 'em in hospital every year about 5.000 never come out alive so it's quite urgent. Could you ask him if he'd expect those numbers to fall... I dunno maybe he'll need to conduct a study of existing procedures. If he needs a visa I could try to set that up with the minister but we haven't got much money - is he a charity or a business?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 01:15 AM

Quote:
IVF is... you know... UNNATURAL! *dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnn*

Oh good answer — for a 5-year-old.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 01:36 AM

Quote:
and I'll tell you why as well


While I agree that response times to posts here don't really indicate of much of anything, except perhaps some sort of actual life, please don't pretend to know why or why not people may take their time to post -- you really have no way of knowing and you certainly aren't clairvoyant ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 02:56 AM

Quote:
I agree that response times to posts here don't really indicate of much of anything

Thank you.

Quote:
you really have no way of knowing and you certainly aren't clairvoyant ...

Oh dear, taking literally what was only a suggestion. If the statement is untrue let Society members refute it - otherwise it stands.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 03:42 AM

Quote:
Oh dear, taking literally what was only a suggestion.


Well, even suggesting the reasons why people here may have taken there time responding is pretty silly given you really have no way of knowing other than your own projections ... I mean, what was the point, exactly?

Quote:
If the statement is untrue let Society members refute it - otherwise it stands.


I'll be happy to refute your statement: In my case the reason I took time to reply to your post was that I had better things to do, not because I had any qualms about what medical procedure should have priority over another ...

So there: your statement falls.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 03:47 AM

Oh please. One of the best defenses against MRSA is simple routine cleaning and disinfecting. Good God, you can reduce the occurrence of MRSA by just wiping door knobs and handrails with a good disinfectant. Thorough restroom cleaning. Autoclaving surgical instruments. Microfiber cleaning cloths and mops and systems...

You're telling me this is news in your part of the world? "Maybe you lot" need a Visa to come here to learn how to wash your hands! Yah, that's another preventive measure. Surprise!

You are soooooooooo reaching now.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 03:49 AM

Wow, talk about rabbiting on...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 04:29 AM

Quote:
even suggesting the reasons why people here may have taken there time responding is pretty silly given you really have no way of knowing other than your own projections ... I mean, what was the point, exactly?

I've already explained the point. It was to suggest that infants dying from gastroschisis for want of dialysis machine and colonic cancer sufferers dying when they could be saved by simple procedures should be a higher priority than persons seeking lifestyle treatments out of the same fund.

Quote:
I'll be happy to refute your statement: In my case the reason I took time to reply to your post was that I had better things to do, not because I had any qualms about what medical procedure should have priority over another

The statement was that:

"everyone went very quiet after I posted that colonic cancer correspondence and mentioned that home-made infant dialysis machine... and I'll tell you why as well - because they don't want to admit that dealing with those problems should be a higher priority than IVF."

You can temporarily get away with claiming more important things to do but when you eventually come back in and waste time on evasive answers that skirt around the central issue it refutes nothing and the suggestion still stands - you don't want to admit that dealing with those problems should be a higher priority than IVF.

km
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 04:48 AM

This is the thread that never ends,
it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting, not knowing what it was,
and they'll keep posting on and on and on and on because...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 04:53 AM

Quote:
Oh please. One of the best defenses against MRSA is simple routine cleaning and disinfecting. Good God, you can reduce the occurrence of MRSA by just wiping door knobs and handrails with a good disinfectant. Thorough restroom cleaning. Autoclaving surgical instruments. Microfiber cleaning cloths and mops and systems...

I've heard that those measures would only prevent 15 per cent of cases - is that wrong? Seems we could get infections down to 85,000 and deaths down to 4,250 by bringing in your pal. Our cleaners and managers aren't very good though... would he be able to provide training as well?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 05:22 AM

Quote:
Our cleaners and managers aren't very good though
Then it's not funding usurped by IVF, but rather incompetence? Wow!

But hey, "my pal" would love to build a market in the UK. And you could be a hero!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 05:58 AM

Quote:
Then it's not funding usurped by IVF, but rather incompetence? Wow!

Yeah, for the 15 per cent, something's gone wrong somewhere... I was thinking it could cost quite a lot of money to put right - you know, training, recruitment. I was wondering - do you think further research might be needed for the remaining 85 per cent?

Quote:
But hey, "my pal" would love to build a market in the UK. And you could be a hero!

Well I'm not in this for personal gain, you understand. Might I suggest that you contact the Ministry and put your proposals direct to Alan Johnson?

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 06:53 AM


And to think ~ It all started out with a simple, autobiographical statement by the original poster. laugh laugh




Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 07:29 AM

...someone is afraid to lose,
and must wear only the winner's shoes.

grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 07:36 AM

Quote:
Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep posting on and on and on and on because...

I think I know who you mean wink but they're gradually getting cornered.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 08:47 AM

You sure are, my man. I know you think running in circles means there are no corners to get trapped in, but that inward spiral is what'll nail you every time — just like a turd going down the loo. *woooooooooosh gurgle gurgle*
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 09:38 AM

Quote:
I know you think...

Clairvoyance has been ruled inadmissible by six.

Quote:
...running in circles means there are no corners to get trapped in...

t'hoYeah... I've stated my position quite clearly - that I'd prefer to save a child's life than offer lifestyle treatments with the same money. You're trying to distract everyone's attention from your own selfish and twisted values by going on about disinfectant and launching personal attacks but in truth your sense of morality is no higher than a turd going down the loo.

Quote:
just like a turd going down the loo.

At least you admit it.

km

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 09:45 AM

Quote:
I've already explained the point. It was to suggest ...


Funny, I thought the point might be you telling us what motivates us to post or not ...

Quote:
you don't want to admit that dealing with those problems should be a higher priority than IVF.


Oh, look. I guess I was right.

Again, you have no idea why we do or don't post, so please don't presume to lecture us ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 10:00 AM

Quote:
Funny, I thought the point might be you telling us what motivates us to post or not ...

As I've pointed out - that was a suggestion. You seem to be quite slow today?

Quote:
Oh, look. I guess I was right. Again, you have no idea why we do or don't post, so please don't presume to lecture us ...

No, actually, you were wrong. When you demonstrate that you don't want to admit something it's evidence based not clairvoyance. whistle

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 10:29 AM

Quote:
As I've pointed out - that was a suggestion.


Fine. Then please stop "suggesting" what motivates me or anyone else to post since you have no possible grounds for such a suggestion ...

Quote:
When you demonstrate that you don't want to admit something


Before I can "admit" to something I'd have to agree on its veracity. In this case, I don't agree with your position to begin with, so some fear of having to "admit" otherwise in no way motivates me to reply to you or not. And it's fairly presumptuous of you to lecture me or anyone else on what our own motivations are since you really have no clue what they may be ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 10:39 AM

Actually, at this point I'm just trying to get it to 150 replies, because that's when the kickbacks kick-in ;-)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 12:06 PM

Wow. Childish (nya nya nya) one minute, lofty and judgmental the next. Rather conflicted lately, are you?
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 12:22 PM

Anyway, why waste any of this money on health issues when it could be flying a small team of folk to another planet? Priorities, gentlemen...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Know-alls get it wrong, again... - 03/27/09 12:25 PM

Quote:
Childish (nya nya nya) one minute, lofty and judgmental the next.

I don't really care what you are.

Quote:
Rather conflicted lately, are you?

Not really... just pointing out that when it comes to public funding a child's suffering, for example, or space exploration, should take priority over a person's lifestyle. Have you re-considered your position on that by the way?

km