[Navydoc]

Samsung manufactued the TV both ways, and claimed the picture looked better with the reflective screen. A few of their models have flat (meaning non-glare) screens, but those are harder to find, and may only be 720P.

Someone earlier posted about compressed video signals. Amen to that. Cable feeds and even satellite are heavily compressed and it drives me crazy. The irony is the absolute best way to watch HD content is by free over the air digital signals. These aren’t compressed at all, and sports programs look FANTASTIC. It’s funny, I can’t stand basketball, but it looks so incredible in high def that I will actually watch it from time to time. You can count the floor boards in the court. The other best way, as was stated before is with high def disc formats like Blu Ray and HDDVD. I am hanging on to HDDVD with a passion, sort of like the old laser disc guys. HDDVDs can still be found for incredible bargains, and as long as the players I have to watch them on still work I intend to enjoy them.

[Navydoc]

Samsung manufactued the TV both ways, and claimed the picture looked better with the reflective screen. A few of their models have flat (meaning non-glare) screens, but those are harder to find, and may only be 720P.

Someone earlier posted about compressed video signals. Amen to that. Cable feeds and even satellite are heavily compressed and it drives me crazy. The irony is the absolute best way to watch HD content is by free over the air digital signals. These aren’t compressed at all, and sports programs look FANTASTIC. It’s funny, I can’t stand basketball, but it looks so incredible in high def that I will actually watch it from time to time. You can count the floor boards in the court. The other best way, as was stated before is with high def disc formats like Blu Ray and HDDVD. I am hanging on to HDDVD with a passion, sort of like the old laser disc guys. HDDVDs can still be found for incredible bargains, and as long as the players I have to watch them on still work I intend to enjoy them.

[Navydoc]

Samsung manufactued the TV both ways, and claimed the picture looked better with the reflective screen. A few of their models have flat (meaning non-glare) screens, but those are harder to find, and may only be 720P.

Someone earlier posted about compressed video signals. Amen to that. Cable feeds and even satellite are heavily compressed and it drives me crazy. The irony is the absolute best way to watch HD content is by free over the air digital signals. These aren’t compressed at all, and sports programs look FANTASTIC. It’s funny, I can’t stand basketball, but it looks so incredible in high def that I will actually watch it from time to time. You can count the floor boards in the court. The other best way, as was stated before is with high def disc formats like Blu Ray and HDDVD. I am hanging on to HDDVD with a passion, sort of like the old laser disc guys. HDDVDs can still be found for incredible bargains, and as long as the players I have to watch them on still work I intend to enjoy them.

[Navydoc]

Samsung manufactued the TV both ways, and claimed the picture looked better with the reflective screen. A few of their models have flat (meaning non-glare) screens, but those are harder to find, and may only be 720P.

Someone earlier posted about compressed video signals. Amen to that. Cable feeds and even satellite are heavily compressed and it drives me crazy. The irony is the absolute best way to watch HD content is by free over the air digital signals. These aren’t compressed at all, and sports programs look FANTASTIC. It’s funny, I can’t stand basketball, but it looks so incredible in high def that I will actually watch it from time to time. You can count the floor boards in the court. The other best way, as was stated before is with high def disc formats like Blu Ray and HDDVD. I am hanging on to HDDVD with a passion, sort of like the old laser disc guys. HDDVDs can still be found for incredible bargains, and as long as the players I have to watch them on still work I intend to enjoy them.

[Navydoc]

I was thinking about what I posted a few replies ago, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible this physician could have falsified the medical record and actually placed more than 6 embryos. The patient would never know it. As the details of this physicians practice increasingly come to light, the possibilty that HE may have lied become more likely. So I suppose nosuch might be right after all, just not about WHO was doing the lying. It’s difficult for me to even imagine falsifying a medical record, but it’s even more difficult to imagine placing more than 3 embryos in this woman’s uterus.

[Navydoc]

I was thinking about what I posted a few replies ago, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible this physician could have falsified the medical record and actually placed more than 6 embryos. The patient would never know it. As the details of this physicians practice increasingly come to light, the possibilty that HE may have lied become more likely. So I suppose nosuch might be right after all, just not about WHO was doing the lying. It’s difficult for me to even imagine falsifying a medical record, but it’s even more difficult to imagine placing more than 3 embryos in this woman’s uterus.

[Navydoc]

I was thinking about what I posted a few replies ago, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible this physician could have falsified the medical record and actually placed more than 6 embryos. The patient would never know it. As the details of this physicians practice increasingly come to light, the possibilty that HE may have lied become more likely. So I suppose nosuch might be right after all, just not about WHO was doing the lying. It’s difficult for me to even imagine falsifying a medical record, but it’s even more difficult to imagine placing more than 3 embryos in this woman’s uterus.

[Navydoc]

I was thinking about what I posted a few replies ago, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible this physician could have falsified the medical record and actually placed more than 6 embryos. The patient would never know it. As the details of this physicians practice increasingly come to light, the possibilty that HE may have lied become more likely. So I suppose nosuch might be right after all, just not about WHO was doing the lying. It’s difficult for me to even imagine falsifying a medical record, but it’s even more difficult to imagine placing more than 3 embryos in this woman’s uterus.

[Navydoc]

I was thinking about what I posted a few replies ago, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible this physician could have falsified the medical record and actually placed more than 6 embryos. The patient would never know it. As the details of this physicians practice increasingly come to light, the possibilty that HE may have lied become more likely. So I suppose nosuch might be right after all, just not about WHO was doing the lying. It’s difficult for me to even imagine falsifying a medical record, but it’s even more difficult to imagine placing more than 3 embryos in this woman’s uterus.

[Navydoc]

I just finished watching this last night after recording it the night it aired. I thought it was quite informative, but I feel it glossed over the responibilty of a major player in this mess. They covered how the ratings were assigned triple A, but were very vague as to how this actually happened, and hardly mentioned AIG’s role with the credit default swaps. This is how a large number of these crap CDO’s became triple A rated. AIG guaranteed the loans against default, so the rating agencies rated them much higher. It turned out that AIG only had a fraction of the capitol required to cover the defaults. Credit default swaps were only breifly mentioned, and the show didn’t state how AIG generated most of them.

[Navydoc]

I just finished watching this last night after recording it the night it aired. I thought it was quite informative, but I feel it glossed over the responibilty of a major player in this mess. They covered how the ratings were assigned triple A, but were very vague as to how this actually happened, and hardly mentioned AIG’s role with the credit default swaps. This is how a large number of these crap CDO’s became triple A rated. AIG guaranteed the loans against default, so the rating agencies rated them much higher. It turned out that AIG only had a fraction of the capitol required to cover the defaults. Credit default swaps were only breifly mentioned, and the show didn’t state how AIG generated most of them.

[Navydoc]

I just finished watching this last night after recording it the night it aired. I thought it was quite informative, but I feel it glossed over the responibilty of a major player in this mess. They covered how the ratings were assigned triple A, but were very vague as to how this actually happened, and hardly mentioned AIG’s role with the credit default swaps. This is how a large number of these crap CDO’s became triple A rated. AIG guaranteed the loans against default, so the rating agencies rated them much higher. It turned out that AIG only had a fraction of the capitol required to cover the defaults. Credit default swaps were only breifly mentioned, and the show didn’t state how AIG generated most of them.

[Navydoc]

I just finished watching this last night after recording it the night it aired. I thought it was quite informative, but I feel it glossed over the responibilty of a major player in this mess. They covered how the ratings were assigned triple A, but were very vague as to how this actually happened, and hardly mentioned AIG’s role with the credit default swaps. This is how a large number of these crap CDO’s became triple A rated. AIG guaranteed the loans against default, so the rating agencies rated them much higher. It turned out that AIG only had a fraction of the capitol required to cover the defaults. Credit default swaps were only breifly mentioned, and the show didn’t state how AIG generated most of them.

[Navydoc]

I just finished watching this last night after recording it the night it aired. I thought it was quite informative, but I feel it glossed over the responibilty of a major player in this mess. They covered how the ratings were assigned triple A, but were very vague as to how this actually happened, and hardly mentioned AIG’s role with the credit default swaps. This is how a large number of these crap CDO’s became triple A rated. AIG guaranteed the loans against default, so the rating agencies rated them much higher. It turned out that AIG only had a fraction of the capitol required to cover the defaults. Credit default swaps were only breifly mentioned, and the show didn’t state how AIG generated most of them.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[Author]

Posts