Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
no_such_reality
ParticipantNavydoc,
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.
ParticipantNavydoc,
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.
ParticipantNavydoc,
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.
ParticipantNavydoc, you didn’t say anything.
What is the probability an embryo splits? 32 out of 1000? That’s one, two concurrent splits?
And let’s face facts, ethics and rational thought has been sorely missing between the doctor and patient. The same patient also has demonstrated a glib interpetation of reality regarding not taking welfare, etc.
ParticipantNavydoc, you didn’t say anything.
What is the probability an embryo splits? 32 out of 1000? That’s one, two concurrent splits?
And let’s face facts, ethics and rational thought has been sorely missing between the doctor and patient. The same patient also has demonstrated a glib interpetation of reality regarding not taking welfare, etc.
ParticipantNavydoc, you didn’t say anything.
What is the probability an embryo splits? 32 out of 1000? That’s one, two concurrent splits?
And let’s face facts, ethics and rational thought has been sorely missing between the doctor and patient. The same patient also has demonstrated a glib interpetation of reality regarding not taking welfare, etc.
ParticipantNavydoc, you didn’t say anything.
What is the probability an embryo splits? 32 out of 1000? That’s one, two concurrent splits?
And let’s face facts, ethics and rational thought has been sorely missing between the doctor and patient. The same patient also has demonstrated a glib interpetation of reality regarding not taking welfare, etc.
ParticipantNavydoc, you didn’t say anything.
What is the probability an embryo splits? 32 out of 1000? That’s one, two concurrent splits?
And let’s face facts, ethics and rational thought has been sorely missing between the doctor and patient. The same patient also has demonstrated a glib interpetation of reality regarding not taking welfare, etc.
ParticipantChild protective services needs to take the children away for their own good.
As for the six implants, I suspect it’s bunk when we really dig in. The probability of two of the six splitting seems pretty remote.
ParticipantChild protective services needs to take the children away for their own good.
As for the six implants, I suspect it’s bunk when we really dig in. The probability of two of the six splitting seems pretty remote.
ParticipantChild protective services needs to take the children away for their own good.
As for the six implants, I suspect it’s bunk when we really dig in. The probability of two of the six splitting seems pretty remote.
ParticipantChild protective services needs to take the children away for their own good.
As for the six implants, I suspect it’s bunk when we really dig in. The probability of two of the six splitting seems pretty remote.
ParticipantChild protective services needs to take the children away for their own good.
As for the six implants, I suspect it’s bunk when we really dig in. The probability of two of the six splitting seems pretty remote.
February 12, 2009 at 8:31 PM in reply to: banks selling houses to friends for next to nothing #345490ParticipantFrankly, it’s a cruddy sellers market. “Bird in hand” makes a lot of sense.
Things to consider:
1. The highest offer isn’t necessarily the best offer.
2. The seller doesn’t have to take multiple offers. More time means more expense. More expense means a greater loss.
3. The best REOs never make it to the MLS. -
AuthorPosts