Damn Science Anyway!

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080329/fob1.asp

Quoted message said:

Strangely enough this appears to be exactly the case with Floyd Landis but
of course the male sexual organ admirers here were completely willing to
call him a liar because of their high educations in science.

I'm a scientist. I can tell you aren't.

-rj

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080329/fob1.asp

Strangely enough this appears to be exactly the case with Floyd Landis
but
of course the male sexual organ admirers here were completely willing to
call him a liar because of their high educations in science.

I'm a scientist. I can tell you aren't.

Good explanation. That certainly underscores your scientific capacity.

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm a scientist. I can tell you aren't.

"About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted enough
TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a hormone
shot"

"On the other hand, 14 percent of people with two copies of the gene made so
much TG that the current test would flag them as cheaters even before they
got testosterone shots."

Hmm, now let's see, what percentage of riders were testing positive and
exclaiming that they don't use testosterone?

| "About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted
enough
| TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a
hormone
| shot"
|
| "On the other hand, 14 percent of people with two copies of the gene made
so
| much TG that the current test would flag them as cheaters even before they
| got testosterone shots."

Is that 14% of the already-much-smaller-number of people with the oddity of
two copies of the gene? In which case it could be an exceedingly-rare (and
relatively-easily tested for) possibility? Or is it saying that 14% of the
population has two copies of this gene? Big difference between the two.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > I'm a scientist. I can tell you aren't.
|
| "About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted
enough
| TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a
hormone
| shot"
|
| "On the other hand, 14 percent of people with two copies of the gene made
so
| much TG that the current test would flag them as cheaters even before they
| got testosterone shots."
|
| Hmm, now let's see, what percentage of riders were testing positive and
| exclaiming that they don't use testosterone?
|

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| "About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted
enough
| TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a
hormone
| shot"
|
| "On the other hand, 14 percent of people with two copies of the gene
made
| so much TG that the current test would flag them as cheaters even before
| they got testosterone shots."

Is that 14% of the already-much-smaller-number of people with the oddity
of
two copies of the gene? In which case it could be an exceedingly-rare (and
relatively-easily tested for) possibility? Or is it saying that 14% of the
population has two copies of this gene? Big difference between the two.

That's not "exceedingly-rare" but in fact is about 5% of the athletic group.

As I mentioned before - what percentage of athletes have they been accusing
of using testosterone that are crying foul?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is that 14% of the already-much-smaller-number of people with the oddity
of
two copies of the gene? In which case it could be an exceedingly-rare (and
relatively-easily tested for) possibility? Or is it saying that 14% of the
population has two copies of this gene? Big difference between the two.

That's not "exceedingly-rare" but in fact is about 5% of the athletic group.

Answer the qestion, don't make up numbers

Quoted message said:

As I mentioned before - what percentage of athletes have they been accusing
of using testosterone that are crying foul?

So what ? What percentage of athletes that have tested positive (or
"non-negative"😉 have NOT cried foul ? You might also be aware of the
fact that jails are full of innocent people...

"Keith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is that 14% of the already-much-smaller-number of people with the oddity
of
two copies of the gene? In which case it could be an exceedingly-rare
(and
relatively-easily tested for) possibility? Or is it saying that 14% of
the
population has two copies of this gene? Big difference between the two.

That's not "exceedingly-rare" but in fact is about 5% of the athletic
group.

Answer the qestion, don't make up numbers

I think that neatly demonstrates your mathematical capacity. Thanks and you
are relieved.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a scientist.  I can tell you aren't.

Good explanation. That certainly underscores your scientific capacity.

Not really. One needn't be a scientist to tell that you are a nutbag.

Though now that I think of it, signal-detection theory could be
applied to both situations (detection of testosterone doping, and
detection of a nutbag).

-rj

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Is that 14% of the already-much-smaller-number of people with the oddity of
two copies of the gene? In which case it could be an exceedingly-rare (and
relatively-easily tested for) possibility? Or is it saying that 14% of the
population has two copies of this gene? Big difference between the two.

Mike,

145 individuals were genotyped for this study:

15% homozygous del (del/del) = 0 copies of UGT2B17
52% heterozygous (del/ins) = 1 copy of UGT2B17
33% homozygous ins (ins/ins) = 2 copies of UGTb17

Neither allele or either or homozygote is exceedingly rare nor is
either state an "oddity".

They typed 145 subjects to identify 20 of each genotype to participate
in the study where they would inject testosterone and follow
metabolism. There were some dropouts from the 20 selected individuals
in each group which is why the numbers in the tables are not all 20.

14% of the ins/ins group had baseline T/E ratios above 4. That is 2 of
14 ins/ins homozygote subjects.

The authors estimate that this would lead to a false positive rate of
9% using the current T/E cut off of 4. This indicates the need for
IRMS testing to identify synthetic testosterone use before calling a
positive test a true positive.

Unless Floyd is a plant-human chimera or the IRMS test was performed
incorrectly by the lab he's still toast. But the lab could have blown
the IRMS as discussed an infinitum previously....

No matter how you look at it, current T/E ratio testing has a
significant false positive and high false negative rate.

Hope that answered your question. The paper could be presented more
clearly but the authors would probably say the same of mine.

Mark

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Unless Floyd is a plant-human chimera or the IRMS test was performed
incorrectly by the lab he's still toast. But the lab could have blown
the IRMS as discussed an infinitum previously....

The initial test of Floyd (from memory) showed a T/E ratio of 4.5:1 - the
second test OF THE SAME SAMPLE showed 15:1. I've been wondering why no one
finds that odd.

Quoted message said:

No matter how you look at it, current T/E ratio testing has a
significant false positive and high false negative rate.

Thank you for your comments.

On 04/13/2008 07:37 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080329/fob1.asp

"The genetic variation affects an enzyme that processes testosterone.
Testosterone is naturally made in the body by both men and women, although
it is primarily known as a male sex hormone. In order to distinguish between
naturally present hormone and synthetic testosterone from steroid use, drug
tests measure a ratio of two chemicals found in urine.
One chemical, epitestosterone glucuronide (EG), is made at a constant level
in the body, regardless of testosterone levels. The other chemical,
testosterone glucuronide (TG), is a testosterone by-product.

Testers measure the ratio of TG to EG. Any amount of TG greater than four
times the level of EG is considered a red flag for doping."

Strangely enough this appears to be exactly the case with Floyd Landis but
of course the male sexual organ admirers here were completely willing to
call him a liar because of their high educations in science.

Conviently skipping this part:

About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted enough
TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a hormone
shot, the team reports online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism.

"There is a risk that many such individuals have escaped detection," says
Anders Rane of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and one of the
authors of the study.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Conviently skipping this part:

About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted enough
TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a
hormone
shot, the team reports online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism.

"There is a risk that many such individuals have escaped detection," says
Anders Rane of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and one of
the
authors of the study.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the article? It says that YOU
CAN'T TRUST ANY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TESTS THEY'VE BEEN GIVING.

Steven, sometimes I wonder if there's a brain beneath that hat. What would
lead you to try to argue about that article?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > Conviently skipping this part:
| >
| > About 40 percent of the people who lacked the enzyme never secreted
enough
| > TG to raise warning flags in the standard test, even after getting a
| > hormone
| > shot, the team reports online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
| > Metabolism.
| >
| > "There is a risk that many such individuals have escaped detection,"
says
| > Anders Rane of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and one of
| > the
| > authors of the study.
|
| Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the article? It says that YOU
| CAN'T TRUST ANY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TESTS THEY'VE BEEN GIVING.
|
| Steven, sometimes I wonder if there's a brain beneath that hat. What would
| lead you to try to argue about that article?

Tom: If you honestly feel that there's a misunderstanding because someone
missed the main point of something, why hurl insults? Sometimes you make
some good points, and sometimes you're the person who missed the point. It's
that thing about being human. We're *all* guilty of it from time to time.
The other thing to consider is that, if you wish someone to reconsider their
own thinking on a subject, it would help if there was evidence of you doing
the same. You never know what might be learned that way. Could be that the
world isn't quite so black & white, but full of shades of gray, and it's the
way we work with those shades of gray that determine our value, in my
opinion.

And yes, I recognize the absurdity of using RBR as a platform for such
thinking...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com