Question:

sorry mate i can’t agree. i’m an accountant, and when auditing, it is your responsibility to check every figure. Sure we only use random samples, but surely somebody must have seen something.

Well, actually stastics would tell us the above statements are in conflict with each other.  If you have a responsibility to check (meaning verify) every figure, then by definition you cannot use stastical sampling since such sampling always carries a risk of failing to uncover a problem.  Now, that risk can be quantified, but the risk is always there. I don’t have a problem with that, because we are supposed to provide a *reasonable* assurance there are no material issues, not an absolute one. And, frankly, given the number of transactions involved in Enron and Andersen’s own involvment in "blessing" such transactions, it seems highly likely that Andersen’s work fell far short of meeting that test (and, perhaps, very possible that Andersen knew of many of the problems and simply elected not to talk about them). But we have to be careful not to create a situation where auditing would be impossible.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – sorry mate i can’t agree. i’m an accountant, and when auditing, it is your responsibility to check every figure. Sure we only use random samples, but surely somebody must have seen something. Well, actually stastics would tell us the above statements are in conflict with each other.  If you have a responsibility to check (meaning verify) every figure, then by definition you cannot use stastical sampling since such sampling always carries a risk of failing to uncover a problem.  Now, that risk can be quantified, but the risk is always there. I don’t have a problem with that, because we are supposed to provide a *reasonable* assurance there are no material issues, not an absolute one. And, frankly, given the number of transactions involved in Enron and Andersen’s own involvment in "blessing" such transactions, it seems highly likely that Andersen’s work fell far short of meeting that test (and, perhaps, very possible that Andersen knew of many of the problems and simply elected not to talk about them). But we have to be careful not to create a situation where auditing would be impossible.

Ed, your contributions here show that you master and love your profession. So why not jump into the political fray and do something about its current lamentable situation? A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": fissionable domestic disruption KGB Ortega Uzi cryptographic SDI Nazi

Response:

Concur 200 % based on the relatively short time I have been following this newsgroup.

<clarity break You may have not seen my subsequent post.

I just did.   If Ed were to proclaim himself the leader of "accounting jihad (struggle)" I would be among the first in line to support him.   — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Ed, your contributions here show that you master and love your profession. So why not jump into the political fray and do something about its current lamentable situation? Because, frankly, I do need to eat <grin and I don’t think anyone is going to pay me to go to DC to lobby Congress-critters.  Additionally, my major background is tax related, not attest work (though due to SSARS, I do have attest work I end up with).

Lucien, In my opinion Ed has made a huge contribution over the last several years.   If you go back and research old newsgroup postings you will discover that Ed has reliably and consistently presented his opinions, provided solid factual information, and intelligently debated anyone who cared to differ with him.  I have found that to be immensely useful.   — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ed, your contributions here show that you master and love your profession. So why not jump into the political fray and do something about its current lamentable situation? Because, frankly, I do need to eat <grin and I don’t think anyone is going to pay me to go to DC to lobby Congress-critters. Additionally, my major background is tax related, not attest work (though due to SSARS, I do have attest work I end up with). Lucien, In my opinion Ed has made a huge contribution over the last several years. If you go back and research old newsgroup postings you will discover that Ed has reliably and consistently presented his opinions, provided solid factual information, and intelligently debated anyone who cared to differ with him.  I have found that to be immensely useful.

Concur 200 % based on the relatively short time I have been following this newsgroup. You may have not seen my subsequent post. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": counter-intelligence FSF Honduras Noriega South Africa Kennedy Khaddafi

Response:

Ed, your contributions here show that you master and love your profession. So why not jump into the political fray and do something about its current lamentable situation? Because, frankly, I do need to eat <grin and I don’t think anyone is going to pay me to go to DC to lobby Congress-critters.  Additionally, my major background is tax related, not attest work (though due to SSARS, I do have attest work I end up with).  

Could you get some stockholders’ association and maybe some stock exchanges to support you? A lot of investors are rightly quite angry with the Big 5 and may be willing to engage qualified people like yourself to help get things right. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Uzi SEAL Team 6 KGB [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] CIA

Response:

Ed, your contributions here show that you master and love your profession. So why not jump into the political fray and do something about its current lamentable situation?

Because, frankly, I do need to eat <grin and I don’t think anyone is going to pay me to go to DC to lobby Congress-critters.  Additionally, my major background is tax related, not attest work (though due to SSARS, I do have attest work I end up with).  

Response:

sorry mate i can’t agree. i’m an accountant, and when auditing, it is your responsibility to check every figure. Sure we only use random samples, but surely somebody must have seen something. When joe blow walks off the street and wants to invest in a company, he/she has to be able to trust the information that we provide. Ofcourse if there was no fraud being committed by Andersons, then they should not be held responsible for any legal action, but they should be looked into by someone to find out why they didn’t pick something up.

I think they did pick something up – several million dollars. Regards, Irv

Response:

sorry mate i can’t agree. i’m an accountant, and when auditing, it is your responsibility to check every figure. Sure we only use random samples, but surely somebody must have seen something. When joe blow walks off the street and wants to invest in a company, he/she has to be able to trust the information that we provide. Ofcourse if there was no fraud being committed by Andersons, then they should not be held responsible for any legal action, but they should be looked into by someone to find out why they didn’t pick something up.

Response:

Question:

Look at the properties of each message……look the same dont they? Right click on the message and hit properties… Plus the wording in each message was a little to "alike" TH

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LMAO….replying to yourself as spam……hmmm the "new" spam? brutal…. TH how do you know? and how do you do it? Dear Semeon! We want to offer you our new inventory system for any kind of business. Inventory Executive System is a complete system for  management of sales, purchases and payments. This system will help you in creation invoices, sale orders, purchase orders, receiving lists, payment receipts, product labels with barcodes and any kinds of the reports for monitoring your business. System allows to control  customer balances and vendor balances. http://executivpro.tripod.com Executive Property Investment Dear friends! Recently  I began the retail business. What inexpensive programs can I  use for the inventory and financial accounting? Semeon

Response:

LMAO….replying to yourself as spam……hmmm the "new" spam?   brutal…. TH

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Semeon! We want to offer you our new inventory system for any kind of business. Inventory Executive System is a complete system for  management of sales, purchases and payments. This system will help you in creation invoices, sale orders, purchase orders, receiving lists, payment receipts, product labels with barcodes and any kinds of the reports for monitoring your business. System allows to control  customer balances and vendor balances. http://executivpro.tripod.com Executive Property Investment

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear friends! Recently  I began the retail business. What inexpensive programs can I  use for the inventory and financial accounting? Semeon

Response:

LMAO….replying to yourself as spam……hmmm the "new" spam?   brutal…. TH

how do you know? and how do you do it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Semeon! We want to offer you our new inventory system for any kind of business. Inventory Executive System is a complete system for  management of sales, purchases and payments. This system will help you in creation invoices, sale orders, purchase orders, receiving lists, payment receipts, product labels with barcodes and any kinds of the reports for monitoring your business. System allows to control  customer balances and vendor balances. http://executivpro.tripod.com Executive Property Investment Dear friends! Recently  I began the retail business. What inexpensive programs can I  use for the inventory and financial accounting? Semeon

Response:

Dear friends! Recently  I began the retail business. What inexpensive programs can I  use for the inventory and financial accounting? Semeon

Response:

Dear Semeon! We want to offer you our new inventory system for any kind of business. Inventory Executive System is a complete system for  management of sales, purchases and payments. This system will help you in creation invoices, sale orders, purchase orders, receiving lists, payment receipts, product labels with barcodes and any kinds of the reports for monitoring your business. System allows to control  customer balances and vendor balances. http://executivpro.tripod.com Executive Property Investment – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear friends! Recently  I began the retail business. What inexpensive programs can I  use for the inventory and financial accounting? Semeon

Response:

Question:

Well I am seeking help from any tax expert or any body in the knowledge of filing Income tax retuns for coporations, trusts, franchises, Non profit organisations, partnerships as well as individuals to give a detailed outline as well as interpretion of accounting statements that directly affect filing income tax returns

Response:

Well I am seeking help from any tax expert or any body in the knowledge of filing Income tax retuns for coporations, trusts, franchises, Non profit organisations, partnerships as well as individuals to give a detailed outline as well as interpretion of accounting statements that directly affect filing income tax returns

If you want any sort of meaningful response from the regulars in this group you will need to focus your request.   — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online? No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation. Lucky you–last time I taught programming, I was _ordered_ to fail 50% of them.  Really sucked–they were a bright bunch. So what did you do? Did you do it?

No, I didn’t.  And I never darkened the doorway of that place again. — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online? No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation. Lucky you–last time I taught programming, I was _ordered_ to fail 50% of them.  Really sucked–they were a bright bunch. So what did you do? Did you do it? No, I didn’t.  And I never darkened the doorway of that place again.

Bravo! Good for you!! A man of integrity!!! Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online? No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation. Lucky you–last time I taught programming, I was _ordered_ to fail 50% of them.  Really sucked–they were a bright bunch.  But it made sense as well–the politicians decreed that the school could not turn anyone away who met the entrance requirements, the administration couldn’t figure out how to tweak the entrance requirements to keep enrollment under control, the foundation couldn’t raise enough money to increase the faculty to where they could handle the load, and so the only other option was to reduce the class size by flunking half the freshman class.

I don’t think this is an issue, yet. Everyone is talking about helping students succeed, but also trying to get rid of the ones who won’t make it before the ADD/DROP date. If a lot more students were able to pass the course, it might cause the university some concern, though. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I *was* a programmer. And I got bored with it. Now I’m doing something that *I* find fun. Pluses: 1. Never get the same day twice. 2. Complete changes of work type almost yearly(all within the same company) 3. Time critical work – so nothing gets backlogged. The next shift deals with any leftover work. Congratulations, did you make this move before or after being diagnosed. I have known for years that I would be much better in a job that didn’t carry over day to day.

Sheer bloody luck.  Just kept trying jobs, at almost yearly intervals during my 20’s, fell into this one in my late twenties, and have stuck around nearly 13 years cos it suited so well. This was before I had children who then got diagnosed ADD. Hubby and I aren’t diagnosed, but since we started recognising symptoms in the kids, it hasn’t been hard to recognise where they inherited these tendencies! I don’t think us oldies would be clinically diagnosed, but my younger brother and hubby’s father, in another time, probably would have been. To us, it looks like ADD like tendencies are in both sides of the family, so we see it as our kids have got a double whammy of genetic material. LJ Right now I get features that should be about a month to complete, you can imagine how well that works. I used to tell my friends I need to be janitor or something with no carry over till the next day. This was long before I suspected ADD.

Anything that works on a 24hr shift would have the same job properties. Is there any troubleshooting/emergency maintenance type companies that you can think of?   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Peter

Response:

Actually I think I am only cut out for Bug hunting and fixing now. Actually I think a big clue is that I have never written a program for fun or interest. I could never organize enough to do that, but here I am doing it (badly) for a living. go figure. I really feel I need a total direction change. But I am not sure what to next.

Consider parcitipating in some Open Source projects. The nice aspect of this kind of programming is that it’s much more cut-out for our generally chaotic nature. And there’s no pressure on you if you don’t want there to be any. I’ve been real lucky so far, job-wise. I seem to have mastered the skill. In retrosight, getting yourself to design, write and finish software is the same thing as learning how to play the piano. If you get discouraged by the tedious playing of scales when you start out, you’ll never know how much enjoyment can be achieved when you get past that. Now of course it’s hard for an ADDer to see Future Wellfare through Present Hardship. We strive for instant gratification. I think it’s mostly through a miracle that I managed to master a couple of skills at some point. And only when I got there did I have enough courage to know I could master others as well. Question for the group: Am I stepping on a taboo when I say I think that the adult AD(H)Der is so stuck in certain patterns of self imagery that a lot of our "shortcomings" are actually just perceptual? When I got diagnosed and started doing Ritalin, I sure felt better but I still ran into the same things. A year onwards I seem to have grown up tremendously and lost part of my bad habits (others still remain) and I have this feeling that, despite the medication, the biggest fight was ultimately not against my ADD but about my pattern-based thinking about what I could and couldn’t do, about what I did and didn’t enjoy doing. Pi

Response:

I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall.

online?

Response:

OK.  What *do* you like to do?  What causes you to hyperfocus?  What do you love spending time doing? Right now I am pretty drained, nothing seems like fun, this is why I finally sought help. The only things I focus on are distractions –  net-surfing/research. I have a nasty habit of turning on the TV and the computer and surfing both until hours and hours get wasted. Yuk!

Been there, done that.  Got a job net-surfing at one point, then went into another doing online investigative research.  Now I’m a SAHM. Is there anything that you find an enjoyable challenge?  The reason Chewy enjoys and hyperfocuses on programming (as long as he’s got a good boss) is that he enjoys the challenge of it. Kitten

Response:

I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online?

No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation.

Response:

says… I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online? No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation.

Lucky you–last time I taught programming, I was _ordered_ to fail 50% of them.  Really sucked–they were a bright bunch.  But it made sense as well–the politicians decreed that the school could not turn anyone away who met the entrance requirements, the administration couldn’t figure out how to tweak the entrance requirements to keep enrollment under control, the foundation couldn’t raise enough money to increase the faculty to where they could handle the load, and so the only other option was to reduce the class size by flunking half the freshman class. — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall. online? No, to a lecture hall with 100 students 50% of whom are expected to fail. I see an opportunity to improve the situation. Lucky you–last time I taught programming, I was _ordered_ to fail 50% of them.  Really sucked–they were a bright bunch.

So what did you do? Did you do it? Nancy Unique, like everyone else

Response:

OK.  What *do* you like to do?  What causes you to hyperfocus?  What do you love spending time doing?

Right now I am pretty drained, nothing seems like fun, this is why I finally sought help. The only things I focus on are distractions –  net-surfing/research. I have a nasty habit of turning on the TV and the computer and surfing both until hours and hours get wasted. Yuk! Seeker

Response:

I enjoy programming, but do get bored with too much of it.  I prefer managing project and doing a little programming.

Managing would take orgranizational/planning skills that I am void. I am hoping to start learning Java soon.  I am not able to self learn programming languages, so I have to find courses that teach them.

My employer encourages taking courses every year, but I gave up a few years ago, after I realized that I get ZERO out of them if they don’t test. The only time I learn anything is during stress cramming for tests. I couldn’t pay attention to a lecture unless you held a gun to my head. I would trade this career for any other.

Did you mean to type wouldn’t? seeker

Response:

I *was* a programmer. And I got bored with it. Now I’m doing something that *I* find fun. Pluses: 1. Never get the same day twice. 2. Complete changes of work type almost yearly(all within the same company) 3. Time critical work – so nothing gets backlogged. The next shift deals with any leftover work. I work at an airport. For a few months I might be doing check-in, then a few times a day I’ll be sent to the departure gate. Then there’ll be a delay, and I’ll be off booking hotels and coaches and working out how to rebook people. For the last few months I’ve been having a great time tracing lost baggage. It’s better than doing crosswords! Enter details of lost bag here, and look for matching ‘found’ baggage around the world. Sometimes the ‘matches’ are really weird, which adds to the satisfaction of finding it. Watch the ‘Airport’ and ‘LAX’ shows – and that’s my day. Well, all those things actually happen, but in our quiet airport, they won’t usually all happen on the same day. Over the space of a month, lots happens. Never a dull day. And then we get the fun bits, like Scooby Doo filming last week for a couple of days. All the (male) staff walking round mumbling ‘Buffy…’ I’ve been there 12 years now… and I’ll be late if I don’t get moving! LJ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a CS degree ( which I recieved at 30 after several tries). School was one thing where all the assignments tend to be small and problem like, but I have been working/faking it for 5 years now and I finally realized I am getting no-where. In the real world all programming involves about 5% interesting problem solving and 95% drudge coding to support that 5%.  Large scale organization skills are needed to put together big programs and I can’t organize my socks.   Time estimates are required on large features – I just guess with disasterous results. Everything I have ever worked on has been in the end scaled back and underdelivered. I don’t know why I haven’t been let go yet. I am yet untreated in any way. I being diagnosed right now. But I am quite sure I have innattentive ADD (always have). Follow your heart. Well, it says be a freelance photographer for National Geographic and I can’t take a decent picture.

Response:

Are there any ADD software developers here? How do you cope? I have been thinking that this is just the wrong career for someone with ADD. Seeker

Response:

Are there any ADD software developers here? How do you cope? I have been thinking that this is just the wrong career for someone with ADD. Seeker

Yup, here I is. As for being the wrong career, it all depends on what yoiu want to do. I find that as long as I’m challenged mentally, I do just fine.  In fact I’ve cranked out some damn fine code.  But once I get bored, my productivity just goes. Chewy — I support the massive use of herbicides to eradicate unwanted shrub

Response:

Yup, here I is. As for being the wrong career, it all depends on what yoiu want to do. I find that as long as I’m challenged mentally, I do just fine.  In fact I’ve cranked out some damn fine code.  But once I get bored, my productivity just goes.

Unfortunately, I find about 5% of coding/design interesting, but 95% drudge work. Its not going well.

Response:

Are there any ADD software developers here? How do you cope? I have been thinking that this is just the wrong career for someone with ADD. Seeker Yup, here I is. As for being the wrong career, it all depends on what yoiu want to do. I find that as long as I’m challenged mentally, I do just fine.  In fact I’ve cranked out some damn fine code.  But once I get bored, my productivity just goes.

Not to mention that he’s hell to be around when he’s bored. <ducks and runs Kitten

Response:

Yup, here I is. As for being the wrong career, it all depends on what yoiu want to do. I find that as long as I’m challenged mentally, I do just fine.  In fact I’ve cranked out some damn fine code.  But once I get bored, my productivity just goes. Unfortunately, I find about 5% of coding/design interesting, but 95% drudge work. Its not going well.

Are you doing what you *want* to do?  If not, what is it that you want to do?  Is there a particular type of coding that you find really, really interesting?

Response:

I’ll be teaching introductory Java in the Fall.

Response:

I *was* a programmer. And I got bored with it. Now I’m doing something that *I* find fun. Pluses: 1. Never get the same day twice. 2. Complete changes of work type almost yearly(all within the same company) 3. Time critical work – so nothing gets backlogged. The next shift deals with any leftover work.

Congratulations, did you make this move before or after being diagnosed. I have known for years that I would be much better in a job that didn’t carry over day to day. Right now I get features that should be about a month to complete, you can imagine how well that works. I used to tell my friends I need to be janitor or something with no carry over till the next day. This was long before I suspected ADD. Peter

Response:

Yup, here I is. As for being the wrong career, it all depends on what yoiu want to do. I find that as long as I’m challenged mentally, I do just fine.  In fact I’ve cranked out some damn fine code.  But once I get bored, my productivity just goes. Unfortunately, I find about 5% of coding/design interesting, but 95% drudge work. Its not going well.

I wonder if it all depends on which type of ADD you have. (Just wondering if this can influence it) I have practically given up on computer programming. I had bought books upon books hoping one would be "the method" to help me stick with programming. I have books on C, C++, Game Programming, Perl, Basic (Quick Basic, Visual Basic, Power Basic), Assembly programming, Windows programming, Java, tutorials saved on disk on Pascal programming, stuff about Delphi. Finally decided, that besides writing little scripts here and there I should give it up. However it may not be the way for you to go. Maybe you’ll find something that will give you the push you need, so hang in there. For me though, art, design, crafts, etc comes more natural (although sometimes I get overwhelmed with complicated stuff there too – but I find I can overcome the hurdle much easier than I can with programming, thus I can stick to it better). Follow your heart.        Norma   <Sigline space for rent

Response:

I wonder if it all depends on which type of ADD you have. (Just wondering if this can influence it) I have practically given up on computer programming. I had bought books upon books hoping one would be "the method" to help me stick with programming. I have books on C, C++, Game Programming, Perl, Basic (Quick Basic, Visual Basic, Power Basic), Assembly programming, Windows programming, Java, tutorials

I have a CS degree ( which I recieved at 30 after several tries). School was one thing where all the assignments tend to be small and problem like, but I have been working/faking it for 5 years now and I finally realized I am getting no-where. In the real world all programming involves about 5% interesting problem solving and 95% drudge coding to support that 5%.  Large scale organization skills are needed to put together big programs and I can’t organize my socks.   Time estimates are required on large features – I just guess with disasterous results. Everything I have ever worked on has been in the end scaled back and underdelivered. I don’t know why I haven’t been let go yet. I am yet untreated in any way. I being diagnosed right now. But I am quite sure I have innattentive ADD (always have). Follow your heart.

Well, it says be a freelance photographer for National Geographic and I can’t take a decent picture. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –       Norma  <Sigline space for rent

Response:

Are you doing what you *want* to do?  If not, what is it that you want to do?  Is there a particular type of coding that you find really, really interesting?

Actually I think I am only cut out for Bug hunting and fixing now. Actually I think a big clue is that I have never written a program for fun or interest. I could never organize enough to do that, but here I am doing it (badly) for a living. go figure. I really feel I need a total direction change. But I am not sure what to next. Seeker

Response:

I suspect that I am ADD.  I plan on going in for testing once I stop procrastinating (lol). I have been programming in RPG on the IBM System 36 then the IBM AS/400 for 13 yrs.  I have a BS in Business Administration with a major in Computer Information Systems. I enjoy programming, but do get bored with too much of it.  I prefer managing project and doing a little programming. I am hoping to start learning Java soon.  I am not able to self learn programming languages, so I have to find courses that teach them. I would trade this career for any other.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are there any ADD software developers here? How do you cope? I have been thinking that this is just the wrong career for someone with ADD. Seeker

Response:

Are you doing what you *want* to do?  If not, what is it that you want to do?  Is there a particular type of coding that you find really, really interesting? Actually I think I am only cut out for Bug hunting and fixing now.

Well, that’s something that is greatly needed since there are a lot of companies who do the big rushes to get "just good enough" programs out, then need the bugs found and fixed. Actually I think a big clue is that I have never written a program for fun or interest.

Yes, that *is* a big clue.  There are times that Chewy gets soooo hyperfocused on a program that it’s absolutely irritating.  Not to say that he seems to be having "fun" when he’s like that, but there are times when it becomes like a huge, fascinating puzzle for him.   That I can understand.  I love the challenge of doing net research. I’ve been known to get so absorbed that I don’t realize that hours have gone by.  I did the same with accounting. I could never organize enough to do that,

Organization?  What’s that???  <g You’re not alone. but here I am doing it (badly) for a living. go figure. I really feel I need a total direction change. But I am not sure what to next.

OK.  What *do* you like to do?  What causes you to hyperfocus?  What do you love spending time doing? Kitten

Response:

Question:

My company does database input for small business clients, many of whom use Quickbooks, MYOB, Peachtree, etc. Among the things we do is input our clients Accounts Payable and Receivable into our own database. Then we let give the files to our clients for import. The problem is that they get duplicate entries.  For example: 1. OfficeDepot sends them a bill on April 2 2. We input the bill into a database for them on April 3 3. Our client downloads from that database on April 4, so the client now has a QB, MYOB, etc. record of the unpaid OfficeDepot bill. 4. Our client pays the bill on April 10. 5. We update the database that we manage to reflect this payment. 6. Our client downloads from our database on April 11 7. Our client now has a problem, since QB, MYOB, etc. seem to read the payment information from April 10 as a new invoice!  QB & MYOB now show two OfficeDepot bills from April 2, one of which is listed as unpaid and the second of which is listed as paid!  But they are really the same invoice, the "unpaid" one should have been replaced by the "paid" bill. Is there any way to get QB, MYOB, etc. to recognize that there have been changes made to the invoice (like that its been paid)? Thanks. Steve Schmidt Before you buy.

Response:

Payment of a bill is a separate transaction, it is not a change to the bill. QB and most other accounting software can attempt to recognize and prevent duplicate entry of a bill based on the bill number (it’s a "preference" setting in QB), but it is not foolproof and I doubt that it works with imported transactions. The duplication is obvious – you and your client are both entering the bill.  Probably you MUST, in order to enter the bill payment in your database, so tell your client NOT to enter the bill.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My company does database input for small business clients, many of whom use Quickbooks, MYOB, Peachtree, etc. Among the things we do is input our clients Accounts Payable and Receivable into our own database. Then we let give the files to our clients for import. The problem is that they get duplicate entries.  For example: 1. OfficeDepot sends them a bill on April 2 2. We input the bill into a database for them on April 3 3. Our client downloads from that database on April 4, so the client now has a QB, MYOB, etc. record of the unpaid OfficeDepot bill. 4. Our client pays the bill on April 10. 5. We update the database that we manage to reflect this payment. 6. Our client downloads from our database on April 11 7. Our client now has a problem, since QB, MYOB, etc. seem to read the payment information from April 10 as a new invoice!  QB & MYOB now show two OfficeDepot bills from April 2, one of which is listed as unpaid and the second of which is listed as paid!  But they are really the same invoice, the "unpaid" one should have been replaced by the "paid" bill. Is there any way to get QB, MYOB, etc. to recognize that there have been changes made to the invoice (like that its been paid)? Thanks. Steve Schmidt Before you buy.

Response:

Re item 6 what kind of transaction are you telling QB that this is?  For it to work, it should be BILLPMT. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My company does database input for small business clients, many of whom use Quickbooks, MYOB, Peachtree, etc. Among the things we do is input our clients Accounts Payable and Receivable into our own database. Then we let give the files to our clients for import. The problem is that they get duplicate entries.  For example: 1. OfficeDepot sends them a bill on April 2 2. We input the bill into a database for them on April 3 3. Our client downloads from that database on April 4, so the client now has a QB, MYOB, etc. record of the unpaid OfficeDepot bill. 4. Our client pays the bill on April 10. 5. We update the database that we manage to reflect this payment. 6. Our client downloads from our database on April 11 7. Our client now has a problem, since QB, MYOB, etc. seem to read the payment information from April 10 as a new invoice!  QB & MYOB now show two OfficeDepot bills from April 2, one of which is listed as unpaid and the second of which is listed as paid!  But they are really the same invoice, the "unpaid" one should have been replaced by the "paid" bill. Is there any way to get QB, MYOB, etc. to recognize that there have been changes made to the invoice (like that its been paid)? Thanks. Steve Schmidt Before you buy.

Response:

alt.comp.software.fin,biz.comp.accouting,comp.text.xml,alt.accounting: My company does database input for small business clients, many of whom use Quickbooks, MYOB, Peachtree, etc. [...] they get duplicate entries

Well, this is probably a troll since you’re hip enough to post into the XML discussion.  But anyway… Yours is an *excellent* example of a replication problem.  Replication is a serious subject on which acres of book/magazine material appeared 1980- 1995 or so, but isn’t "news" anymore.  There were some really excellent articles on the subject of replication in DBMS Magazine and DBPJ Magazine, both of which were bought and discontinued by Miller Freeman http://index.thunderstone.com/texis/dbms/mag/search.html   This kind of pure research stuff has fragmented to various websites like TDAN–  http://www.tdan.com/edatt1_archive.htm   Whenever a magazine just tells the plain simple truth, the advertisers flee (e.g. Byte, Boardwatch, Network, etc. and I fear, InfoWorld)  To make money in the magazine business, you have to print biased features and product comparisons that support your advertisers (e.g. anything from Ziff Davis) YES replication can be done but NO, replication is not a good strategy. http://www.gldialtone.com/endredundancy.htm http://www.gldialtone.com/exploration.htm So, you have to view the "replication" problem as just a "tactical" question within the broader strategic question of where your data resources must be maintained, if you’re ever going to obtain the best long-term economic results.   I presume you’re planning to have a long-term presence in public accounting 3 years and more… Replication is pretty much dead, in accounting or OLTP applications, other than some "publish and subscribe" models for keeping everybody’s items and customers list current.   If you have multiple locations, you want a centrallized master file for transactions, PERIOD.  Now that we have the internet and XML to permit loose coupled, asynchronous posting there is no excuse for what you’re doing. My company does database input for small business clients, many of whom use Quickbooks, MYOB, Peachtree, etc.

NO — it is impossible to implement any coherent replication process using consumer products like Quickbooks, MYOB, and Peachtree.  These packages maintain proprietary, lock-in databases that prevent any hope of replication.  (Many programmers have tried. All have failed.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Among the things we do is input our clients Accounts Payable and Receivable into our own database. Then we let give the files to our clients for import. The problem is that they get duplicate entries.  For example: 1. OfficeDepot sends them a bill on April 2 2. We input the bill into a database for them on April 3 3. Our client downloads from that database on April 4, so the client now has a QB, MYOB, etc. record of the unpaid OfficeDepot bill. 4. Our client pays the bill on April 10. 5. We update the database that we manage to reflect this payment. 6. Our client downloads from our database on April 11 7. Our client now has a problem, since QB, MYOB, etc. seem to read the payment information from April 10 as a new invoice!  QB & MYOB now show two OfficeDepot bills from April 2, one of which is listed as unpaid and the second of which is listed as paid!  But they are really the same invoice, the "unpaid" one should have been replaced by the "paid" bill. Is there any way to get QB, MYOB, etc. to recognize that there have been changes made to the invoice (like that its been paid)?

Steve– you have to think more strategically.   1.  You want the database to be located someplace where your client can access it, and you can also access it. 2.  Your bookkeeper shouldn’t be doing so much data entry anyway. In the long run you have to guide your clients away from products that require the Sewing Machine approach to business (operator sits at the console inputting all the transactions). Take the pledge: "I WILL NEVER LOOK AT DATA.  I ONLY WORK WITH METADATA." I took this pledge 12/31/99 and will never again input numbers from paper into computers or into tax returns.  I only work with the system. I don’t do writeup or taxes. I tell the computer how to handle TYPES of data.  Then the computer will do the writeup and the taxes. 3.  You want a product that can send and receive orders, invoices and payments over the internet.  With Quickbooks, Peachtree and MYOB you can only conduct a dialogue with your laser printer.  You are driving a software platform decision which is the root cause of very far-reaching and costly paper-based workcycle, physical trips to the postoffice and the bank, etc. Get a webledger NOW.  Ease into it.  Run them as a sub-ledger. Don’t wait five years.   Save yourself.  Save your clients. NetLedger http://www.netledger.com  ** the best right now afaics. BizTone http://www.biztone.com/ IntAcct http://www.intacct.com/ eLedger http://www.eledger.com/ BizFinity http://www.bizfinity.com/accfinity.cfm NetVeil http://www.netveil.com/ SecuredBooks http://www.securedbooks.com/ BAPort http://www.baport.com CyberOffice http://www.cyberoffice.com Accounter http://accounter.mit.edu/ OpenAccounts http://www.openaccounts.com/ FlagSys http://www.flagsys.com/ASP.html RDS http://www.rds-software.com/Frame/webeng/Primaindex.html QSP http://www.qspinc.com/ MetalWare http://www.metalwareinc.com/ AccKnowledge http://www.m3as.com/FBMain.htm Primacy http://www.primacycorp.com/ etc etc etc etc etc.  hundreds of smaller ones. * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes

Response:

YES replication can be done but NO, replication is not a good strategy.

Controlled replication is not an easy problem to solve, but it does have valid applications. That’s the space where Lotus makes a lot of their money. In the web-world, many folks are looking at smart caching of one sort or another, which also becomes a kind of replication. Most of the "source code control systems" also attempt to address this issue, to some degree. Replicating across applications that weren’t designed for the purpose is considerably harder, of course. XML may be of use in transcoding the data into a form where it’s easier to compare. But unless the applications capture timestamps for each change to their data on a record-by-record basis, it can be very difficult to reconcile conflicts when the same data is authored from more than one source. And even when they do, occasionally you may  run into situations where you do need to step in manually and help the the machine figure out which portions of which change should win. —

Response:

Boyle) writes: Replication is pretty much dead, in accounting or OLTP applications, other than some "publish and subscribe" models for keeping everybody’s items and customers list current.  

Umm… Much as I hate to disagree with Todd, replication is still an essential part of most fault tolerance strategies, and while FT used to be the province of the big boys it is now becoming a basic factor (I hope !) in all Web-based systems, albeit as "high availability" rather than FT. Of course replication is not duplication. NO — it is impossible to implement any coherent replication process using consumer products like Quickbooks, MYOB, and Peachtree.  These packages maintain proprietary, lock-in databases that prevent any hope of replication.

Which provides interesting implications when combined with my comment above…     — Roger Barnett

Response:

YES replication can be done but NO, replication is not a good strategy. Controlled replication is not an easy problem to solve, but it does have valid applications. … In the web-world, many folks are looking at smart caching of one sort or another, which also becomes a kind of replication.

These are good facts.  But the original post had two accountants in two locations posting transactions into two separate copies of the same transaction database…. not a good strategy…. A commonsense architecture for small business with multiple sites is either to stay out of each other’s way by some kind of batch system, or logging into a single accounting system – a webledger, in other words.  My links page has a list of commercial and free webledgers available. Anytime you have a replication question you have to wonder why. In the first place there shouldnt’ be manual data entry going on at the sites.  There should be an architecture on the web, where they perform actions like buying and selling, in order to update both partys’ systems.  i.e. those transactions should flow as XML messages to the appropriate host systems.  So any time you see replication, you know, something stinks. There is no trend for online accounting and business applications, webledgers, ehubs or marketplaces etc. to use database replication for transactions, or even take advantage of the caches out on the net, that I’m aware of,even for lists.  There is no business XML vocabulary for it either.  All the business vocabularies are XML messages like I described previous paragraph. All of the leading webledgers are doing everything they can, to make the product fast and responsive and they’re all very focused on caching; for example BizTone and eLedger experimented with separate browser windows for a while; my impression was BizTone had put some lists into local memory controlled by applets.  BAPort takes advantage of some capability built into the MSIE5 browser, to persist some tables of XML.  Several of the webledgers use ActiveX controls or local executables which opens the possibilities for some intelligent caching of lists.  But the leading webledgers all just run in a browser, and use the same (limited) tricks to try to keep selected information in the browser cache, * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, WebLedgers, ASPs, GL dialtone, whatever it takes

Response:

These are good facts.  But the original post had two accountants in two locations posting transactions into two separate copies of the same transaction database…. not a good strategy….

Of course replication _is_ harder to code than accessing the database "live". But if one of the users has a good reason to run disconnected at times, replication can be a better solution. Make it two salesmen at different sites rather than two accountants, who need reasonably-but-not-absolutely current data on the company they’re working with and whose separately-submitted orders aren’t going to step on each other. If you really need a completely accurate at-this-moment result, then yes, you need to go back to the central server. Of course that is only a snapshot, unless you keep going back to the server and track the changes as they occur… which is, itself, a kind of replication. But the leading webledgers all just run in a browser,

Tautology, perhaps? If it’s web-based, folks expect it to run in a browser. That doesn’t necessarily mean that a browser is the best way to access it. (I seem to remember that Notes can be accessed via a browser these days, if you don’t need replication.) Note: I don’t mean to push Notes for this application; I don’t know enough about accounting software to have a valid opinion. I just wanted to point out that "it hasn’t been done so it can’t be done" is probably a bad way to bet. (And yes, I understand that accountants are among the most conservative computer users, and rightly so. But remember, it wasn’t that long ago that paper double-entry was the state of the art.) —

Response:

Question:

Thanks for depressing me further. db

Sorry. William R. James — No Silly Auctions – Sell your Stuff in an on-line Flea Market. http://www.kudzucountry.com   Kudzu Country Store & Flea Market

Response:

<alt.activism added Good. Then maybe those "poor" will go to work so I am not forced to fork over 43% of my income, (all taxes included) to pay for them. I wonder how much of your post is motivated by a personal desire on your part to have us pay for your upcoming elective, and un-necessary, surgery ? db

43% ???  Are you kidding?  Unless you are doing a great deal of "under the table" work, it’s closer to 65%. Perhaps you neglected to account for local or state shakedowns. Perhaps you forgot about the fact that income taxes are accumative "value added" taxes as well as income.  This is because when you buy a widget, you are also paying the income taxes of everyone involved in the financing, production, accounting, shipping, stocking, selling, advertising, and even disposing of the widget. That doesn’t include the fuel taxes, liscensing, import/export, telephone, and other taxes which have to be paid by the companies and vendors which also have any association with the widget. The price of the widget includes all those taxes.  Then you have to pay sales tax on top of that, plus the taxes on the labor you traded to make the money to buy the widget, fuel taxes to get you to work and to the widget store, and whatever liscensing is involved in your work and to own a widget.  And we haven’t even mentioned the unfunded mandates imposed upon the all the companies mentioned above, from social security to social programming, all of which are hidden taxes which are also paid by you when you buy your widget. And don’t buy the electric widget unless you want to include the taxes on the electricity, and the electrician’s income etc…  etc…. Aren’t widgets expensive?  :) William R. James — No Silly Auctions – Sell your Stuff in an on-line Flea Market. http://www.kudzucountry.com   Kudzu Country Store & Flea Market

Response:

Thanks for depressing me further. db

Response:

Question:

"At seven P.M. the main hatchway gave in he said "Fellas it’s been good to know ya""

I hate that song.  Now I have to kill you.  I’m sorry.

Response:

"At seven P.M. the main hatchway gave in he said "Fellas it’s been good to know ya""

Response:

"At seven P.M. the main hatchway gave in he said "Fellas it’s been good to know ya""

the church bell rang, ’til it rang 29 times for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald  - gordon lightfoot

Response:

"The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" by Gordon Lightfoot. and that was the cook talkin’. Try something a bit more difficult SS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "At seven P.M. the main hatchway gave in he said "Fellas it’s been good to know ya""

Response:

I know it was simple but it’s kinda been in my head lately so I figured what the hell. (snicker) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" by Gordon Lightfoot. and that was the cook talkin’. Try something a bit more difficult SS "At seven P.M. the main hatchway gave in he said "Fellas it’s been good to know ya""

Response:

Was it called Timothy ??    About a fellow trapped in a mine who ate either his dog or his best friend !!??    LOL —  never figured out which it was !     – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Trapped in a mine with the roof caved in, the only one left to tell the tale was (???), and me and Tim"  What song is this, and what is it about?

Response:

Believe it’s "Big John" by Jimmy Dean. Wasn’t it about a collapse at the sausage mine? ) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Trapped in a mine with the roof caved in, the only one left to tell the tale was (???), and me and Tim"  What song is this, and what is it about?

Response:

Believe it’s "Big John" by Jimmy Dean.

Yep, it was Big John. It was a coal mine, though. Jared

Response:

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald- damn good tune at that.

Response:

Damn LONG tune, ya mean! SS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald- damn good tune at that.

Response:

Name This Tune – "Sunday, Monday, Happy Days, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Happy Days …." Somethng like that. Regards, James

Response:

Didn’t Mr Miagi sing back-up on that. Name This Tune – "Sunday, Monday, Happy Days, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Happy Days …." Somethng like that. Regards, James

–      /7         /_(         |_|  "I sense millions of minds focused on my cleavage." – Troi     |_| |   |_| /  For guitar resources, home-made .mp3’s, | | /|=|/ /       and movie quotes check out         | | |_| /     http://www.atlantic.net/~cipriano     |  /  -=-o /      /~_/             /

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Didn’t Mr Miagi sing back-up on that. Name This Tune – "Sunday, Monday, Happy Days, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Happy Days …." Somethng like that. Regards, James —     /7        /_(        |_|  "I sense millions of minds focused on my cleavage." – Troi    |_| |   |_| /  For guitar resources, home-made .mp3’s, | | /|=|/ /       and movie quotes check out         | | |_| /     http://www.atlantic.net/~cipriano     | /  -=-o /    /~_/            /

That’s Arnold to you, Mr!!!!!  I’m joking. Actually, didn’t Henry Winkler sing the theme to Happy Days or is that someone else? By the way,  that Happy Days band was great.  I mean Potsy could play leads and make it look like he was playing rhythm guitar.   You know, that show was filmed in the ’70s/early ’80s and took place in the ’50s but if it took place in the ’60s and made in the late ’80s/early ’90s, Potsy would not be Potsy, he would be called Pot Head. Sayonara, James

Response:

For the other "Old Guys": "Bring dynamite – and a crane – blow it up, start all over again" The Old Guy Remove the "z",(if present) from e-mail address to respond.    http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!

Response:

"Bring dynamite – and a crane – blow it up, start all over again"

Tobacco Road.  Done by everyone and their dog in the late 60s. —  << << << << << << << <<  << << << << << << << <<

Response:

"Bring dynamite – and a crane – blow it up, start all over again" Tobacco Road.  Done by everyone and their dog in the late 60s. —  << << << << << << << <<  << << << << << << << <<

My dog’s power trio,"ARF!" did a hard rock version in 1969. It was on a local label ("Scratch Records") and had decent regional airplay-they were a big local draw. The ripped off Hendrix’s ‘humping the guitar’ stage routine, quite literally. They eventually signed with a big mangagement/legal outfit who promised to break them nationwide. I think the same people who formerly handled, Lassie, Benjie and really made their name with Rin Tin Tin. Unfortunately "ARF" never asked why all these big dogstars were ‘former clients’. Apparently, the management company was shady, would get big advance money for touring and recording which, along with any actual profits, were wiped out by ‘creative accounting.’ My dog and the rest of those ‘P’-hounds didn’t care, they were just out for all the ‘tail’ they could get and the primo catered dog chow. He once said he’d do it all over again, no regrets. "Life’s too short- especially for a dog…" Steve —  -My webpage here seems to function most of the time, just like Deja.com     http://homestead.deja.com/user.steve_2000/steve_2000.html Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

That is rediculus. Do you really thing anything is suited to rear anything– a squrel rear a sparow, a cow rear a chimp? Perhaps you will have to account for every variable before you can conclude the model contains insuficient certanty.

Well, maybe you’d like to explain why … 1.)  Cats can foster/raise squirrels 2.)  Wolves can foster/raise dogs 3.)  Humans can foster/raise damn near any animal you care to name. Funny how you’re ignoring that.  If indeed there is such a thing as ‘fata rearing distance’ and the ‘FDR’ is based in genetics, why can a human rear a chimp, but not the other way around? Lisa-Boo Chair, Porcine Music Theory To reply, remove "Chchchia!" from the email address.  If you’re not smart enough to do that, then we probably don’t have anything to discuss.

Response:

[Repost  w/touched up grammer.] Lisa, I hope I answered your questions here.  I was wondering if the discription below was more clear or if you were still mulling this over.  As our resident geneticist your feed back is important.  Also any luck on nailing doen codein and non codeing diffrences within and between species? I realize some may consider this whole subject of comparitive relatednbess a bit too too.  But I still think it is worth while to persue compatability theory and ways to quantify the value of human relatedness. Presently I have the .1% as non-codeing.. as per sagan: http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html The difference in coding DNA is 0.1%.

I’m not sure sagan would agree.  But We can use that number. <snip This is what I still don’t understand: genes interact with each other within the SAME system – i.e. a discrete individual.  Even if they do follow a square function in respect to "genespace", it is done within the individual and will not affect distance between two individuals.

Gene "difference" IS between two individuals so the root of the difference is the "Distance" between them.  You have no distance from yourself.  You have distance from others. All the differences between you and your next door neighbor.. take the root..  that’s the "distance". We are not trying to determine the possible gene differences in ONE individual, were are trying to see what the ‘distance’ between two non-related individuals is.

Yes and I sugest the root of genetic differences will give a usefull measure.  But I should point out that there are no actual "unrelated" individuals -just more or less related. You and me, you and your mother, you and a chimp etc.  All are simply more or less related. If you’re attempting to get a linear function then you’re going to have to jettison your use of the square root, aren’t you?

…The distance measure is a stocastic approximation. But if we use simple neucliotide differences between two individuals that linear comparison would not include the interatctions between ‘genes’. (both interactions within the individual and between individuals) That’s a very complex matrix. Do me a favor – define your terms "genespace"  and "genetic distance" for me.

Genespace is defined as the space of possible genetic configurations. I am presenting genetic "distance" as the root of "differences". The "distance" measures how far it is from one genetic configuration to another in gene space. If you travel one meter in some direction then one meter at a right angle what is your total displacement?  Not 2 meters but root(2). Why is that?  Well we call it the pythagorean therom but *why* does that happen?  Think about it.   For gene space the answer is just a tiny bit easier but they are both very fundemental concepts. And keep in mind that genetic distance between individuals is measureing somthign very specific.  It is measureing compatability. As genetic difference grows compatability decreases but it eventually decreases very slowly because you have exausted the imcompatabilities. That’s why you can’t mate with monkeys or anything farther away.  After the fatal distance it does’nt matter much any more.  So in very basic terms the curve is somewhat asyomtotic. …Granted, many enzyme systems are intertwined.  For the unititiated, we are now at the level of protein biochemistry, since genes code for proteins.  However, not all are and I don’t see why you think a simple square root function emcopasses the whole system.

I don’t know about encompasing it but as for being the best approximation it seems to fit.  Remember it’s not just that genes or "neucliotide states" interact with each other but they also are being compared between individuals so there is an added level of "interaction" that degree of mixing is quite common in complex/chaotic systems. It’s basically matrical amd the few loose ends would’nt matter very much because of the complexity of interactions at both levels. Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans.

Actually Right!  Humans *can* rear other humans. They are below the fatal distance.  But that’s not the whole story.  The incompatability is gradual.  A chimp could probabily baby sit a little too. (recal the momma gorrilla that rescued (and defended) a child that had fallen into the gorrilla pit.)  So there is no imediate drop off.  It’s gradual. And I propose for very good reasons that "distance" is the function which allows us to compare degrees of compatability between systems. (and relative to the species boundry) Of course the really secure way to test this is to start a primate adoption service.  Implant chimps in gorrillas and lemurs in chimps etc…  it get’s a little complex but it may be possible.  Also artificial genetic systems are simulated on computer.  Simulate dependancies and then compare alterations or species alterations by similar standards. I beleive the compatability function would bare out. Well wait a minute.  If humans are only .1% different they would only be a quarter of the chimp-human difference from oneanother.

Yes!  Don’t you find that somewhat interesting? That means a child going from .05% related parents to .1% is adding 1/8th of the distance found in chimp-level unrelatedness. I think 1/8th is a lot. How much is too much? And until you can define and prove out what a ‘fatal rearing distance’ is…

I would use the species boundry.  What ever that is.. somthing less than chimp distance.  Probabily about .3% and get a formula to apply it to humans related and otherwise,

Well that’s the root of gene difference between individuals. account for all the variables…

Well which variables?  Perhaps you are thinking Newtonian.  This is about complexity –Accounting for all the variables stocastically because it’s impossible to sit down and say which neucliotide variation between parent and child will cause which problem. you really can’t say with any certainty that relatedness affects rearing.

That is rediculus. Do you really thing anything is suited to rear anything– a squrel rear a sparow, a cow rear a chimp? Perhaps you will have to account for every variable before you can conclude the model contains insuficient certanty. Now I understand you want to look for the holes but at some point one has to accept the principle that reltedness and compatability are linked and that they are generally a gradual function.  Yes the root of orthognal differences is a little tircky but taken together I think these make a good case for compatability as a function of difference and some known "too far" distance. What makes it slightly interesting is that the data sourounding psychopathology in adoptees supports this theory at least to the extent that it’s in the correct range and quality and not apparently organicin nature.  These facts might change but that’s what we have so far. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/sir.htm It would be nice to add other data to the model. —    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

I believe the difference is  0.1%  I will endeavour to get you a source citation for that. Thanks I’d like to know what the latest figures are for codeing and non codeing.  Presently I have the .1% as non-codeing.. as per sagan: http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html The difference in coding DNA is 0.1%.

I’m not sure sagan would agree.  But We can use that number. <snip This is what I still don’t understand: genes interact with each other within the SAME system – i.e. a discrete individual.  Even if they do follow a square function in respect to "genespace", it is done within the individual and will not affect distance between two individuals.

Gene "difference" IS between two individuals so the root of the difference is the "Distance" between them.  You have no distance from yourself.  You have distance from others. .. Your use of the square root applies only within a single individual, and doesn’t account for genes which are discrete.  It doesn’t apply to the sum of ‘difference’ between two individuals.

Actually it does.  All the differences between you and your next door neighbor.. take the root..  that’s the "distance". We are not trying to determine the possible gene differences in ONE individual, were are trying to see what the ‘distance’ between two non-related individuals is.

Yes and I sugest the root of genetic differences will give a usefull measure. But I should point out that there are no actual "unrelated" individuals -just more or less related. You and me, you and your mother, you and a chimp etc.  All are simply more or less related. If you’re attempting to get a linear function then you’re going to have to jettison your use of the square root, aren’t you?  And even *I* don’t think that genotypic/phenotypic expression is purely linear, ergo you won’t be able to come up with a linear expression.

Nothing is pure anything.  The distance measure is a stocastic approximation. But if we use simple neucliotide differences between two individuals that linear comparison would not include the interatctions between ‘genes’. (both interactions within the individual and between individuals) That’s a very complex matrix. Do me a favor – define your terms "genespace"  and "genetic distance" for me.

Genespace is defined as the space of possible genetic configurations. I am presenting genetic "distance" as the root of "differences". The "distance" measures how far it is from one genetic configuration to another in gene space. If you travel one meter in some direction one meter then one meter at a right angle then what is your total displacement.  Not 2 meters but root 2.  Why is that?  Well we call it the pythagorean therom but *why* does that happen? Think about it.  For gene space the answer is just a tiny bit easier but they are both very fundemental concepts. And keep in mind that genetic distance between individuals is measureing somthign very specific.  It is measureing compatability. As genetic difference grows compatability decreases but it eventually decreases very slowly because you have exausted the imcompatable interactions. That’s why you can’t mate with monkeys or anything farther away.  After the fatal distance it does’nt matter much any more.  So in very basic terms the curve is somewhat asyomtotic. In the case of some mutations being discrete that is true.  But enzyme interactions are so complicated that most variations are probabily ‘matrical’ (probabily being a natural result of the complexity and evolved nature of the "bag of marbles" that is biochemestery. …Granted, many enzyme systems are intertwined.  For the unititiated, we are now at the level of protein biochemistry, since genes code for proteins.  However, not all are and I don’t see why you think a simple square root function emcopasses the whole system.

I don’t know about encompasing it but as for being the best approximation it seems to fit.  Remember it’s not just that genes or "neucliotide states" interact with each other but they also are being compared between individuals so there is an added level of "interaction" that degree of mixing is quite common in complex/chaotic systems.  I remember I was out rideing aroung with some drinking budies when chaos was being reported on the radio as a really cool new area of mathamatics. Well it is and it applies here in the complex way gene differences interact inside and between organic systems.  It’s basically matrical amd the few loose ends would’nt matter very much because of the complexity of interactions at both levels. Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans.

Actually Right!  Humans *can* rear other humans. They are below the fatal distance.  But that’s not the whole story.  The incompatability is gradual.  A chimp could probabily baby sit a little too. (recal the momma gorrilla that rescued (and defended) a child that had fallen into the gorrilla pit.)  So there is no imediate drop off.  It’s gradual. And I propose for very good reasons that "distance" is that function which allows us to compare degrees of compatability between systems. Of course the really secure way to test this is to start a primate adoption service.  Implant chimps in gorrillas and lemurs in chimps etc…  it get’s a little complex but it may be possible.  Also artificial genetic systems are simulated on computer.  Simulate dependancies and then compare alterations or species alterations by similar standards. I beleive the compatability function would bare out. Well wait a minute.  If humans are only .1% different they would only be a quarter of the chimp-human difference from oneanother.

Yes!  Don’t you find that somewhat interesting? That measn a child going from .05% related parents to .1% is traveling 1/6th the remaining distance to that of a chimp-level of unrelatedness. I think 1/6th is a lot. How much is too much? And until you can define and prove out what a ‘fatal rearing distance’ is…

I would use the species boundry.  What ever that is.. somthing less than chimp distance.  Probabily about .2-.3% and get a formula to apply it to humans related and otherwise,

Well that’s the root of gene difference between individuals. account for all the variables…

Well which variables?  Perhaps you are thinking Newtonian.  This is about complexity.  Accounting for all the variables stocastically because it’s impossible to sit down and say which neucliotide variation between parent and child will cause which problem. you really can’t say with any certainty that relatedness affects rearing.

That is rediculus. Do you really thing anything is suited to rear anything– a squrel rear a sparow, a cow rear a chimp? Perhaps you will have to account for every variable before you can conclude the model contains insuficient certanty. Now I understand you want to look for the holes but at some point one has to accept the principle that reltedness and compatability are linked and that they are generally a gradual function.  Yes the root of orthognal differences is a little tircky but taken together I think these make a good case for compatability as a function of difference and some known "too far" distance. What makes it slightly interesting is that the data sourounding psychopathology in adoptees supports this theory at least to the extent that it’s in the correct range and quality and not apparently organicin nature.  These facts might change but that’s what we have so far. It would be nice to add other data to the model.    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

I believe the difference is  0.1%  I will endeavour to get you a source citation for that. Thanks I’d like to know what the latest figures are for codeing and non codeing.  Presently I have the .1% as non-codeing.. as per sagan: http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html

May I ask why we are bringing non-coding DNA into this when we have both agreed that there’s no point?  The difference in coding DNA is 0.1%. <snip This is what I still don’t understand: genes interact with each other within the SAME system – i.e. a discrete individual.  Even if they do follow a square function in respect to "genespace", it is done within the individual and will not affect distance between two individuals. Well it will not affect the "difference" but ‘distance’ must account for nonlinearity in order to be compared between individuals.  For instance if you started scrambling your neucliotides.  Well at first it would matter a lot.  But after you have changed a percent or two then you would be so scrambled that it would’nt matter much after that.  (that’s the significance of the square root function) I beleive it is also directly ascribed to the matrix of interactions between genes.

That still doesn’t answer the question.  Your use of the square root applies only within a single individual, and doesn’t account for genes which are discrete.  It doesn’t apply to the sum of ‘difference’ between two individuals.  We are not trying to determine the possible gene differences in ONE individual, were are trying to see what the ‘distance’ between two non-related individuals is. Also, genotypic/phenotypic expression certainly doesn’t always follow a strict linear relationship, since certain genes are non-discrete, such as those responsible for height.  They’re affected by the expression of other genes such as those responsible for muscular development.  However, other genes *are* discrete in their expression. I am wondering how you will factor in the ratio of discrete to nondiscrete genes in your formula.  Some genes will follow the matrical relationship, but a significant number will not and that is going to skew your ‘genespace’ formula. It may.  In fact all I am attempting is to get a linear function.  After you have a linear function then you can make comparisons because the "space" can be dimentioned.  If distance calculttion was multiplied by a constant then the comparison of a to b would still cancil out that constant.

If you’re attempting to get a linear function then you’re going to have to jettison your use of the square root, aren’t you?  And even *I* don’t think that genotypic/phenotypic expression is purely linear, ergo you won’t be able to come up with a linear expression. Do me a favor – define your terms "genespace"  and "genetic distance" for me. In the case of some mutations being discrete that is true.  But enzyme interactions are so complicated that most variations are probabily ‘matrical’ (probabily being a natural result of the complexity and evolved nature of the "bag of marbles" that is biochemestery.

Mmmm, not strictly true.  Granted, many enzyme systems are intertwined.  For the unititiated, we are now at the level of protein biochemistry, since genes code for proteins.  However, not all are and I don’t see why you think a simple square root function emcopasses the whole system. Of course beyond this I beleive the general mathamatical concept of "fitness function" which could be substituted to describe "distance" as a function of "descrete differences".  That is similar to the concept of a space in general.  If all these "gene differences" are really "different in and of them selves then they can be considered "orthognal" elements in a larger space. In the case of random neucliotide differences it’s a really gigantic space but that does’nt matter. Since changes are changes the function of a root(difference) would still hold.

Again, the problem with this is that your model only describes what’s going on in a discrete system – a single individual.  And then, only in part.  What you would need to do is this; come up with a formula that sums the expressed difference between RELATED individuals and a formula that sums the expressed differences in UNRELATED individuals and from those two derive something that compares expressed differences between related/unrelateds. Actually I call the chimp distance the fatal rearing dustance.  It may be half that. (and it could be nonlinear –but that’s what we want to know) Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans. Well wait a minute.  If humans are only .1% different they would only be a quarter of the chimp-human difference from oneanother.

Well, you’re calling the "chimp distance" 0.4%, and saying that’s the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  Half of 0.4% is 0.2%.  If the distance were linear and the fatal dstabce .2% then that is under the fatal distance.

Yes, it is. If it were  nonlinear,  what will be the method you’ll use to determine this mathematically? I beleive the root function may sufice.

I don’t think so, because it’s not accounting for linear properties. Linear properties which also affect the overall outcome of the system. If you want to get a truly accurate model you’re going to need to account for those as well. But I should stress it is a very interesting thing that distance measures. As opposed to "difference".  It’s akin to amount of "effect" which can be compared in a relative way.

This is how I see it.  First you’re going to need to define your terms in the simplest manner possible – like "genespace" and "genetic distance".  Then you are going to need to describe them as they apply to related individuals, and also account for variations in relatedness.  Next, you will need to describe them as they apply to non-related individuals, and use the total results to derive a relationship between related-nonrelated (hahahah).  THEN you will have to conduct an exhaustive study of related raising vs non-related raising complete with accurate figures on how disparate each set is in order to determine what, if any distance, is a "fatal rearing distance". But no matter what the math, relatedness distance in adoption are some percentage of hypothetical chimp-human distance.  And we should know what that is.  While I beleive that fatal distance is applicable to other things like ability of individuals to interbreed it is still a significant aspect of child rearing between genetically distinct individuals.  In an eco system diversity is good.  But in rearing it has genetic limitations.

No, Tim, they can’t be.  If the greatest difference between the two most unrelated individuals on earth is 0.1% then it can’t be any percentage of the human-chimp distance.  The number for the human-chimp distance is always going to be much larger.  Also, using that line of logic even the most related individuals on the planet will still be part of that 0.4% #, so that argument still doesn’t hold. And until you can define and prove out what a ‘fatal rearing distance’ is and get a formula to apply it to humans related and otherwise, account for all the variables you really can’t say with any certainty that relatedness affects rearing. Lisa-Boo To reply, remove "Chchchia!" from the email address.  If you’re not smart enough to do that, then we probably don’t have anything to discuss.

Response:

The difference in coding DNA is  0.1%. I’m not sure sagan would agree.  But We can use that number.

Sagan wasn’t a geneticist and the book you quote from is over 10 years old.  So let’s use it. Gene "difference" IS between two individuals so the root of the difference is the "Distance" between them.  You have no distance from yourself.  You have distance from others.

Uhh, yes, I know.  But you keep referring to the interaction of genes, and outside of conception, genes don’t ‘interact’ with each other except within the individual. .. Your use of the square root applies only within a single individual, and doesn’t account for genes which are discrete.  It doesn’t apply to the sum of ‘difference’ between two individuals. Actually it does.  All the differences between you and your next door neighbor.. take the root..  that’s the "distance".

Once again.  Why the square root?  I understand matrices and this is why I still don’t get why you think taking the simple square root of 0.1% indicates the genetic distance between me and my neighbors. Give me the mathematical proof of this (you know, the actual equation), the theorem, because I am just not seeing the mathematical relationship here. We are not trying to determine the possible gene differences in ONE individual, were are trying to see what the ‘distance’ between two non-related individuals is. Yes and I sugest the root of genetic differences will give a usefull measure.

See above. But I should point out that there are no actual "unrelated" individuals -just more or less related. You and me, you and your mother, you and a chimp etc.  All are simply more or less related.

Yes, I know – in fact, I pointed that out to you a long time ago. Does this mean there’s no ‘relatedness deprivation’?  :) If you’re attempting to get a linear function then you’re going to have to jettison your use of the square root, aren’t you?  And even *I* don’t think that genotypic/phenotypic expression is purely linear, ergo you won’t be able to come up with a linear expression. Nothing is pure anything.  The distance measure is a stocastic approximation.

Yes, it is.  And I am not seeing where a square root function measures this stochastically. But if we use simple neucliotide differences between two individuals that linear comparison would not include the interatctions between ‘genes’. (both interactions within the individual and between individuals) That’s a very complex matrix.

First of all, every living thing on this planet has the same nucleotides.  Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine/uracil.  The order of three nucleotide pairs  forms a gene. There are no differences in nucleotides. Furthermore, there’s no interaction between the genes of two individuals except during conception.  There is interaction between phenotypes, or the EXPRESSION of said genes.  And phenotypic expression is actually relatively simple. Do me a favor – define your terms "genespace"  and "genetic distance" for me. Genespace is defined as the space of possible genetic configurations.

In an individual or between two or more individuals? I am presenting genetic "distance" as the root of "differences".

What is the mathematical relationship between "distance" and "differences" and why do you think using the square root defines distance? The "distance" measures how far it is from one genetic configuration to another in gene space.

Fine.  I’ve never heard of this, except from you, but fine. If you travel one meter in some direction one meter then one meter at a right angle then what is your total displacement.  Not 2 meters but root 2.  Why is that?  Well we call it the pythagorean therom but *why* does that happen?

Okay, it’s getting a bit clearer here as to why square root – but this then implies that the genetic difference actually ecompasses a "right angle".  Actually, it implies that ALL the genetic differences encompasse a "right angle". Think about it.  For gene space the answer is just a tiny bit easier but they are both very fundemental concepts.

I am thinking about it.  See above.  I think your use of the square root to derive ‘distance’ is too simplistic. And keep in mind that genetic distance between individuals is measureing somthign very specific.  It is measureing compatability. As genetic difference grows compatability decreases but it eventually decreases very slowly because you have exausted the imcompatable interactions. That’s why you can’t mate with monkeys or anything farther away.  After the fatal distance it does’nt matter much any more.  So in very basic terms the curve is somewhat asyomtotic.

It’s measuring compatibility in terms of being able to mate and reproduce viable, fertile offspring.  Not compatibility in terms of being able to raise a child you didn’t give birth to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …Granted, many enzyme systems are intertwined.  For the unititiated, we are now at the level of protein biochemistry, since genes code for proteins.  However, not all are and I don’t see why you think a simple square root function emcopasses the whole system. I don’t know about encompasing it but as for being the best approximation it seems to fit.  Remember it’s not just that genes or "neucliotide states" interact with each other but they also are being compared between individuals so there is an added level of "interaction" that degree of mixing is quite common in complex/chaotic systems.  I remember I was out rideing aroung with some drinking budies when chaos was being reported on the radio as a really cool new area of mathamatics. Well it is and it applies here in the complex way gene differences interact inside and between organic systems.  It’s basically matrical amd the few loose ends would’nt matter very much because of the complexity of interactions at both levels.

See, those loose ends do count.  Here’s a hypothetical for you – let’s say that 68% of genes within a system are non-linear and are greatly influenced by the interaction of other genes.  32% are linear and expressed independently of other genes.  Will the sqaure function hold there too?  I don’t think so. Never mind hypotheticals.  when a human reproduces, the offspring cannot share more than 50% of the parent’s genes.  We’ll say it’s 50%, for the sake of argument.  This means that the difference between parent and child is 50%, or .5   The square root of .5 is 0.707 (7.07 if you take the square root of 50).  That’s MORE than the agreed-upon number for  the difference between humans and chimps (square root of .4 being .63, 6.3 for 4)! Now do you see why the square root alone is not a sufficient indicator of ‘distance’?  Remember, you are using the difference between humans and chimps as your ‘fatal rearing distance’ ( Yes, I did read the paragraph below before writing this I know you know humans can raise other humans).  The problem here is that you’re assigning a really simple formula to a very complex system. Also, it’s not accounting for something very basic – that the chimp# is merely the difference between chimp genes and humans.  Humans have just a .1% difference between each other BUT the actual percentage of genes a child will share with a parent can’t be more than 50%. Essentially, you’ve got three separate systems here: chimps vs. humans, humans vs. humans, related humans vs. related humans and a simple linear link can’t be established, nor can you use the SR of the numbers to link them and still prove your point. Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans. Actually Right!  Humans *can* rear other humans. They are below the fatal distance.  But that’s not the whole story.  The incompatability is gradual.  A chimp could probabily baby sit a little too. (recal the momma gorrilla that rescued (and defended) a child that had fallen into the gorrilla pit.)  So there is no imediate drop off.  It’s gradual. And I propose for very good reasons that "distance" is that function which allows us to compare degrees of compatability between systems.

Okay.  So  are you saying that the degree of distance indicates how WELL a human can raise another human?  In that case, what parameters are you going to use to indicate ’success’?  How will you factor in or account for people raised within their biofamilies who don’t meet those parameters as well? Of course the really secure way to test this is to start a primate adoption service.  Implant chimps in gorrillas and lemurs in chimps etc…  it get’s a little complex but it may be possible.  Also artificial genetic systems are simulated on computer.  Simulate dependancies and then compare alterations or species alterations by similar standards. I beleive the compatability function would bare out. Well wait a minute.  If humans are only .1% different they would only be a quarter of the chimp-human difference from oneanother. Yes!  Don’t you find that somewhat interesting?

That quote is what YOU wrote, silly. That measn a child going from .05% related parents to .1% is traveling 1/6th the remaining distance to that of a chimp-level of unrelatedness. I think 1/6th is a lot. How much is too much?

1/6 = .16 0.1 – 0.05 = 0.05 0.4 – 0.05 = 0.35 Except a child will not be .05% related to a parent.  They inherit 50% of the parents genes.  You can’t compare these numbers, Tim.  They’re describing two different things.  There is a sum difference of 0.1% in NUCLEOTIDE DIFFERENCES of all coding DNA in humans. … read more »

Response:

Sagan mentions that codeing differences between chimps and humans is .4% but I don’t think he mentions non codeing human-human difference. Because there is no evidence that structural DNA does anything besides provide structure, let us stick with coding DNA.  It’s still on point.

Yes I meant to say codeing.  What is it for humans?  .4% for us and our fuzzy friends but what about people and people? Now As you know I use the Square Root of "difference" to infer "distance" in genespace. Do you have any other numbers? Please explain to me, in terms as complex as you wish, why you use the square root of ‘difference’ to infer ‘genespace’.

Well the principle reason is because genes interact with one another. So from an informational perspective the effect of difference should follow a square function because it is the matrix of relationships between genes that matters informationally.  The same goes for phenotypic expression.  Being short may not be so bad but being short and haveing short arms could loose you an apple if you can’t jump. This is a simple analogy but it explicates the nonlinear multiplying effect of genetic distance.  Yes you chould have longer arms so there’s a potential for compensation but that’s only half the case. If it doesn’t code it doesn’t have any regulatory function in gene expression, does it?… I have read that proximity between genes and weak interactions between junk dna and other elements can actually influence expression of the codeing parts. I think I know what you’re talking about here, and I believe that the weak interaction thing wasn’t supported.

Well it’s a complicated machine.  It would be nice to be able to stick with codeing differences since equateing the informational content between codeing and weak interaction could be difficult. I’d really like to know what your consensus relatedness numbers are… http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html So what are the basic facts of relatedness lisa? It doesn’t matter what the numbers are Tim. The most unrelated human being will still have more genetic similarities than any human-chimp pair.

Well that’s like telling a navagateing astronaut not to worry the nearest plannet is earth.  "You can’t miss it. It’s closer than mars" My point is ‘how close’? Help me out here.  If I remember correctly, you were saying that the ‘distance’ between non-related humans may equal to something called the ‘fatal rearing distance’, and you used the ‘distance’ between humans and chimpanzees as a comparative number, right?

Actually I call the chimp distance the fatal rearing dustance.  It may be half that. (and it could be nonlinear –but that’s what we want to know) I hope your ‘foaming’ comment doesn’t mean that every time I refute or question something you’ve written you’ll ascribe it to me being irrational due to adoption trauma.

Oh.. I’m sure there are a variety of counfounding veriables.    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

Yes I meant to say codeing.  What is it for humans?  .4% for us and our fuzzy friends but what about people and people? I believe the difference is  0.1%  I will endeavour to get you a source citation for that.

Thanks I’d like to know what the latest figures are for codeing and non codeing.  Presently I have the .1% as non-codeing.. as per sagan: http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html Please explain to me, in terms as complex as you wish, why you use the square root of ‘difference’ to infer ‘genespace’. Well the principle reason is because genes interact with one another. So from an informational perspective the effect of difference should follow a square function because it is the matrix of relationships between genes that matters informationally.  The same goes for phenotypic expression. This is what I still don’t understand: genes interact with each other within the SAME system – i.e. a discrete individual.  Even if they do follow a square function in respect to "genespace", it is done within the individual and will not affect distance between two individuals.

Well it will not affect the "difference" but ‘distance’ must account for nonlinearity in order to be compared between individuals.  For instance if you started scrambling your neucliotides.  Well at first it would matter a lot.  But after you have changed a percent or two then you would be so scrambled that it would’nt matter much after that.  (that’s the significance of the square root function) I beleive it is also directly ascribed to the matrix of interactions between genes. Also, genotypic/phenotypic expression certainly doesn’t always follow a strict linear relationship, since certain genes are non-discrete, such as those responsible for height.  They’re affected by the expression of other genes such as those responsible for muscular development.  However, other genes *are* discrete in their expression. I am wondering how you will factor in the ratio of discrete to nondiscrete genes in your formula.  Some genes will follow the matrical relationship, but a significant number will not and that is going to skew your ‘genespace’ formula.

It may.  In fact all I am attempting is to get a linear function.  After you have a linear function then you can make comparisons because the "space" can be dimentioned.  If distance calculttion was multiplied by a constant then the comparison of a to b would still cancil out that constant. In the case of some mutations being discrete that is true.  But enzyme interactions are so complicated that most variations are probabily ‘matrical’ (probabily being a natural result of the complexity and evolved nature of the "bag of marbles" that is biochemestery. Of course beyond this I beleive the general mathamatical concept of "fitness function" which could be substituted to describe "distance" as a function of "descrete differences".  That is similar to the concept of a space in general.  If all these "gene differences" are really "different in and of them selves then they can be considered "orthognal" elements in a larger space. In the case of random neucliotide differences it’s a really gigantic space but that does’nt matter. Since changes are changes the function of a root(difference) would still hold. Actually I call the chimp distance the fatal rearing dustance.  It may be half that. (and it could be nonlinear –but that’s what we want to know) Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans.

Well wait a minute.  If humans are only .1% different they would only be a quarter of the chimp-human difference from oneanother.  If the distance were linear and the fatal dstabce .2% then that is under the fatal distance. If it were  nonlinear,  what will be the method you’ll use to determine this mathematically?

I beleive the root function may sufice. But I should stress it is a very interesting thing that distance measures. As opposed to "difference".  It’s akin to amount of "effect" which can be compared in a relative way. But no matter what the math, relatedness distance in adoption are some percentage of hypothetical chimp-human distance.  And we should know what that is.  While I beleive that fatal distance is applicable to other things like ability of individuals to interbreed it is still a significant aspect of child rearing between genetically distinct individuals.  In an eco system diversity is good.  But in rearing it has genetic limitations.    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

<snip Not without Bouchard’s permission, which I shall endeavour to obtain. Paraphrasing, he’s never heard of you or  your theory, and I sent him not only the URL but the entire text of your page. Hmm.. no surprize since it’s all farily new. I was hopeing for more thoughtfull review.  Perhaps we will see more work in future.

Well, if it’s not been published in a journal he’s likely to read I don’t think he would have heard of it.  I doubt he has time to scour the web looking for stuff, and of course journals are the principle mode of sharing work for most researchers. Did you find any figures for comparative relatedness between species? Didn’t I give them to you about eighty times, Tim?  Incidentally, what’s your opinion on the revision of Bouchard’s numbers on genetic influence, as recently published in _Nature_? I’d like that reference since I have not seen it yet. I think it confrunts some interesting methodological problems.

I’ll get it for you.  I thought I told you about it when it came out. But I was hopeing you could lay out the human-human chimp-human similarity figures.  I guess codeing dna would sufice. I have non codeing chimp-human distance = 1.7%, noncodeing human-human distance = .1% difference?  But I was hopeing to conferm these.

Certainly, let’s stick with DNA that’s known to code.  So why are you brining up non-coding ‘distances’? Sagan mentions that codeing differences between chimps and humans is .4% but I don’t think he mentions non codeing human-human difference.

Because there is no evidence that structural DNA does anything besides provide structure, let us stick with coding DNA.  It’s still on point. Now As you know I use the Square Root of "difference" to infer "distance" in genespace. Do you have any other numbers?

Please explain to me, in terms as complex as you wish, why you use the square root of ‘difference’ to infer ‘genespace’. Was’nt there some discussion that much of the noncodeing "junk dna" actually has regulatory function? If it doesn’t code it doesn’t have any regulatory function in gene expression, does it?  Junk DNA is structural in function, acting as a skeleton for the chromosome.  Of course it you knew anything you’d know that. Well I have read that proximity between genes and weak interactions between junk dna and other elements can actually influence expression of the codeing parts. But this was aparently farily cutting edge as I recall. It was interesting reading I’ll look around for it. These factors would be important for estemateing total informational similarity.

I think I know what you’re talking about here, and I believe that the weak interaction thing wasn’t supported.  As for gene proximity, I think you’re refering to gene clusters, which is nothing new.  In that, the activation of one gene promotes activation of a second gene, all of which function in a particular system (i.e. enzymes).   It’s got nothing to do with ‘distance’  as you are defining it. I’d really like to know what your consensus relatedness numbers are… http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html So what are the basic facts of relatedness lisa? The most nonrelated humans are more like each other than the most closely related humans and chimpanzees.  Any two unrelated members of a given species will always be more similar genetically to each other than they will be to a member of another species.  That’s what speciation is all about, Tim. That’s too general.  I think numbers would help.

Why?  I gave you the definition of a species – genetically similar enough to mate and produce viable, fertile offspring.  Not only do humans and chimpanzees not belong to the same species, we don’t even belong in the same genus.  It doesn’t matter what the numbers are Tim. The most unrelated human being will still have more genetic similarities than any human-chimp pair. Help me out here.  If I remember correctly, you were saying that the ‘distance’ between non-related humans may equal to something called the ‘fatal rearing distance’, and you used the ‘distance’ between humans and chimpanzees as a comparative number, right? Please try avoiding getting your panties in a twist when I disagree with you. Ouch..  I hope you’re not intent on dissagreeing.   Perhaps we can trace out the consensus points. What do you think of the above numbers?

I hope your ‘foaming’ comment doesn’t mean that every time I refute or question something you’ve written you’ll ascribe it to me being irrational due to adoption trauma. This is why I tell you not to take my word for it.  I *know* that you know full well where to go look for this stuff yourself. Lisa-Boo To reply, remove "Chchchia!" from the email address.  If you’re not smart enough to do that, then we probably don’t have anything to discuss.

Response:

Yes I meant to say codeing.  What is it for humans?  .4% for us and our fuzzy friends but what about people and people?

I believe the difference is  0.1%  I will endeavour to get you a source citation for that. Please explain to me, in terms as complex as you wish, why you use the square root of ‘difference’ to infer ‘genespace’. Well the principle reason is because genes interact with one another. So from an informational perspective the effect of difference should follow a square function because it is the matrix of relationships between genes that matters informationally.  The same goes for phenotypic expression.  Being short may not be so bad but being short and haveing short arms could loose you an apple if you can’t jump. This is a simple analogy but it explicates the nonlinear multiplying effect of genetic distance.  Yes you chould have longer arms so there’s a potential for compensation but that’s only half the case.

This is what I still don’t understand: genes interact with each other within the SAME system – i.e. a discrete individual.  Even if they do follow a square function in respect to "genespace", it is done within the individual and will not affect distance between two individuals. As for your example, I’m still not seeing how that explains whatever you think ‘genespace’ is. Also, genotypic/phenotypic expression certainly doesn’t always follow a strict linear relationship, since certain genes are non-discrete, such as those responsible for height.  They’re affected by the expression of other genes such as those responsible for muscular development.  However, other genes *are* discrete in their expression. I am wondering how you will factor in the ratio of discrete to nondiscrete genes in your formula.  Some genes will follow the matrical relationship, but a significant number will not and that is going to skew your ‘genespace’ formula. I think I know what you’re talking about here, and I believe that the weak interaction thing wasn’t supported. Well it’s a complicated machine.  It would be nice to be able to stick with codeing differences since equateing the informational content between codeing and weak interaction could be difficult.

I think we ought to stick with what we know exists.  Otherwise, we’re speculating. It doesn’t matter what the numbers are Tim. The most unrelated human being will still have more genetic similarities than any human-chimp pair. Well that’s like telling a navagateing astronaut not to worry the nearest plannet is earth.  "You can’t miss it. It’s closer than mars" My point is ‘how close’?

My point is it will always be closer than the human-chimp comparison. See below. Help me out here.  If I remember correctly, you were saying that the ‘distance’ between non-related humans may equal to something called the ‘fatal rearing distance’, and you used the ‘distance’ between humans and chimpanzees as a comparative number, right? Actually I call the chimp distance the fatal rearing dustance.  It may be half that. (and it could be nonlinear –but that’s what we want to know)

Okay.  The chimp distance is the ‘fatal rearing distance’.  The difference is .4%, and half of that is .2% (right?).  The distance between non-related humans is .1% so if indeed a linear relationship held true then the ‘fatal rearing distance’ doen’t apply to humans raising nonrelated humans. If it were  nonlinear,  what will be the method you’ll use to determine this mathematically? I hope your ‘foaming’ comment doesn’t mean that every time I refute or question something you’ve written you’ll ascribe it to me being irrational due to adoption trauma. Oh.. I’m sure there are a variety of counfounding veriables.

The bitch genes I inherited from my birthparents? Lisa-Boo To reply, remove "Chchchia!" from the email address.  If you’re not smart enough to do that, then we probably don’t have anything to discuss.

Response:

Could you share your correspondence lisa? Not without Bouchard’s permission, which I shall endeavour to obtain. Paraphrasing, he’s never heard of you or  your theory, and I sent him not only the URL but the entire text of your page.

Hmm.. no surprize since it’s all farily new. I was hopeing for more thoughtfull review.  Perhaps we will see more work in future. Did you find any figures for comparative relatedness between species? Didn’t I give them to you about eighty times, Tim?  Incidentally, what’s your opinion on the revision of Bouchard’s numbers on genetic influence, as recently published in _Nature_?

I’d like that reference since I have not seen it yet. I think it confrunts some interesting methodological problems. But I was hopeing you could lay out the human-human chimp-human similarity figures.  I guess codeing dna would sufice. I have non codeing chimp-human distance = 1.7%, noncodeing human-human distance = .1% difference?  But I was hopeing to conferm these. Sagan mentions that codeing differences between chimps and humans is .4% but I don’t think he mentions non codeing human-human difference. Now As you know I use the Square Root of "difference" to infer "distance" in genespace. Do you have any other numbers? Was’nt there some discussion that much of the noncodeing "junk dna" actually has regulatory function? If it doesn’t code it doesn’t have any regulatory function in gene expression, does it?  Junk DNA is structural in function, acting as a skeleton for the chromosome.  Of course it you knew anything you’d know that.

Well I have read that proximity between genes and weak interactions between junk dna and other elements can actually influence expression of the codeing parts. But this was aparently farily cutting edge as I recall. It was interesting reading I’ll look around for it. These factors would be important for estemateing total informational similarity. I’d really like to know what your consensus relatedness numbers are… http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html So what are the basic facts of relatedness lisa? The most nonrelated humans are more like each other than the most closely related humans and chimpanzees.  Any two unrelated members of a given species will always be more similar genetically to each other than they will be to a member of another species.  That’s what speciation is all about, Tim.

That’s too general.  I think numbers would help. Please try avoiding getting your panties in a twist when I disagree with you.

Ouch..  I hope you’re not intent on dissagreeing.   Perhaps we can trace out the consensus points. What do you think of the above numbers?    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

I was just wondering what happened with lisa’s inquirey into professional opinions about relatedness deprivation. Last I heard Thomas Bouchard was the target for some authoritative feedback. What did Bouchard think? Was he aware of relatedness deprivation theory? Did you offer him the search institute report at http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/sir.htm Could you share your correspondence lisa? Did you find any figures for comparative relatedness between species? Was’nt there some discussion that much of the noncodeing "junk dna" actually has regulatory function? I’d really like to know what your consensus relatedness numbers are. Last we left off we has Sagan implying about a 5% difference in similarity between chimps and humans vis humans and humans. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html So what are the basic facts of relatedness lisa? And please try to refrain from foaming on your keyboard —    http://navpoint.com/~sparky

Response:

Someone emailed this to me, using replay. com.  Someone obviously wants me to keep arguing with Tim.  Okay, he’s temporarily off my killfile. Could you share your correspondence lisa?

Not without Bouchard’s permission, which I shall endeavour to obtain. Paraphrasing, he’s never heard of you or  your theory, and I sent him not only the URL but the entire text of your page. Did you find any figures for comparative relatedness between species?

Didn’t I give them to you about eighty times, Tim?  Incidentally, what’s your opinion on the revision of Bouchard’s numbers on genetic influence, as recently published in _Nature_? Was’nt there some discussion that much of the noncodeing "junk dna" actually has regulatory function?

If it doesn’t code it doesn’t have any regulatory function in gene expression, does it?  Junk DNA is structural in function, acting as a skeleton for the chromosome.  Of course it you knew anything you’d know that. I’d really like to know what your consensus relatedness numbers are. Last we left off we has Sagan implying about a 5% difference in similarity between chimps and humans vis humans and humans. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/Sagan.html

And what were Sagan’s numbers for the percent difference between non-related humans?  Less than 5%, was it?  Incidentally, look at when Sagan published those particular numbers and then compare them to the recent literature. So what are the basic facts of relatedness lisa?

The most nonrelated humans are more like each other than the most closely related humans and chimpanzees.  Any two unrelated members of a given species will always be more similar genetically to each other than they will be to a member of another species.  That’s what speciation is all about, Tim. Lisa has a capital "L", Tim. And please try to refrain from foaming on your keyboard

Please try avoiding getting your panties in a twist when I disagree with you. Whoever sent me that mail, please try sending it under your own email address.  No, I’m not saying it was you Tim. Lisa-Boo To reply, remove "Chchchia!" from the email address.  If you’re not smart enough to do that, then we probably don’t have anything to discuss.

Response:

Question:

AIDS 8, Suppl. 1: S109-S117 (1994)

D.R. Prevots, R.A. Ancelle-Park, J.J. Neal and R.S. Remis The Epidemiology of Heterosexually Aquired HIV Infection and AIDS in Western Industrialized Countries. ABSTRACT: Worldwide, heterosexual contact accounts for the majority of adult HIV infections[1].  …  … we reviewed data … and predicted trends in heterosexually aquired HIV infection<<< This is an unfounded assumption based on a couple of things. In third world countries, because little to no "risk groups" exist (i.e. IV drug users and homosexuals), they say people "acquired" HIV heterosexually.  In reality "most of the 17 million healthy, yet HIV positive people in the world acquired HIV infection naturally, from their mothers," confirms virologist Dr. Peter Duesberg.  Funny enough, if HIV causes AIDS, why are the vast majority of HIV positives (95%) healthy and asymptomatic (WHO, June 1996).  Most of these HIV positivies contracted HIV from their mothers, and have been leading healthy lives for decades. When the WHO did their random "HIV tests" in foreign countries, most people, when told they were HIV positive, were "blissfully unaware" of it, and leading healthy, normal lives.  In short, they "blew off" anything the WHO had to say about their pet harmless retrovirus, HIV.

Response:

  Yes, and in order to differentiate these two factors, you must

control for HIV infection while looking at popper use, and then control for popper use while looking at HIV infection.  This has been done (see the Ascher study).  The result:  it’s HIV, not the poppers.<<< Ha! The Ascher study?  Check out at study that’s not biased toward HIV/AIDS, done by a credible establishment, whose expertise is drug use.  Guess what?  I have such a study.  Look up the monograph entitled the "Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants," published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 1988.  In there you’ll find all the evidence you need proving that poppers lead to AIDS conditions and Kaposi’s Sarcoma (in the absense of HIV).  I would take the NIDA’s word over Ascher.  The NIDA has also recently published papers depicting how recreational drug use can "quicken" the development of AIDS in HIV positives, which below the surface suggests that they can cause AIDS in and of themselves.

Response:

[edit] It is very unlikely that HIV mutates, if it exists as a single entity at all.  If HIV does infect T-cells, any mutation in the virus would prevent it from infecting those T-cells at it’s sites.  Picture a key inserted in a keyhole and opening the door.  If the key is changed in anyway, it cannot open the door anymore.  This is the case against HIV mutating.

Your simplified view may get you through the night, however, it reveals a stark lack of insight into the wonderful world of biological science. Actually, variation occurs in the HIV glycoprotein all the time. This allows it to escape antibody response, and allows it to enter a variety of host cells.  Your basic key analogy is correct. However, in this case the "key" is more like an electronic device that searchers for the password to a computerized lock.  The changing of the "key’s" code actually is what ensures passage into the secured device, or in this case the host cell. The reason AIDS scientists have to give HIV the magical ability of mutating, is because if the "AIDS antivirals/medications" don’t work (and inevidably make AIDS worse in many cases) doctors can say that the omniscient HIV mutuated to avoid the medications.  They basically save their own asses with remarks like this.

Again you display an intense ignorance, yet vibrant willingness to share. Antiviral medication fails because it does not prevent cell-to-cell transmission or internalization of virions that have escaped despite suppression of replication to some finite degree. In some cases patients cannot tolerate a medication and must look for others that may be of benefit with fewer side effects for that particular patient. Your rant about "them" and "they" and say nothing about what you do. Who are they saving their asses for?  With all the research money we have left over, we can only buy so many hookers, limos, and so much booze and drugs per day.  What are you afraid of?  We might pay taxes, or invest in schools, or buy a townhome…  actually that does sound kind of scary. They don’t build them like they used to. [edit] HIV (most likely) does exist as a unique retrovirus,

[edit] See, you’re not so stupid after all. Besides wasting time and space talking about something you obviously have no real insight into, maybe you could tell us what you are doing to help those dying from AIDS, besides spreading misinformation that may be deadly to those looking for one more excuse to be irresponsible. Curious in Carmichael

Response:

Does anyone know how frequently viruses mutate? My CFS friend believes flu viruses mutate every day. I doubt it. I’ve heard that HIV mutates.

It is very unlikely that HIV mutates, if it exists as a single entity at all.  If HIV does infect T-cells, any mutation in the virus would prevent it from infecting those T-cells at it’s sites.  Picture a key inserted in a keyhole and opening the door.  If the key is changed in anyway, it cannot open the door anymore.  This is the case against HIV mutating. The reason AIDS scientists have to give HIV the magical ability of mutating, is because if the "AIDS antivirals/medications" don’t work (and inevidably make AIDS worse in many cases) doctors can say that the omniscient HIV mutuated to avoid the medications.  They basically save their own asses with remarks like this. How can people say that the AIDS virus doesn’t exist when the PCR test is a blood test for the number of the viruses (HIV)??? very confusing.

PCR does not detect whole viruses, only DNA/RNA fragments which can be confused with other retroviruses in the body.  Any health human body could have 50-100 retroviruses, which are all kept under control by antibodies (just like HIV).  Arguments you may have heard say there’s no "AIDS virus" because AIDS in not caused by HIV, but by other factors like recreational drug use, and specifically the AIDS chemotherepy drugs (in healthy HIV positives).  HIV (most likely) does exist as a unique retrovirus, although, like the others (because of it’s genetic similarity) is most like harmless. Samilia

Response:

(Durtro) writes: so, what are the other factors for HIV transmission then if:

The testing is not accurate.  Many things can trigger positive results — possibly including stress — which, with all the hype, you friend was obviously subjected to. What illness did she have before taking the test? Edward Lieb Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?  Ask for my free report: "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."

Response:

Does anyone know how frequently viruses mutate? My CFS friend believes flu viruses mutate every day. I doubt it. I’ve heard that HIV mutates. How can people say that the AIDS virus doesn’t exist when the PCR test is a blood test for the number of the viruses (HIV)??? very confusing. my web site: http://buncombe.main.nc.us/~mforrest

Response:

[ Absurd, imaginative guesstimates roughly removed ] "himself" and others on this newsgroup prefer that nobody gets tested for HIV, that we all wait until hundreds of thousands of people are dying, before we decide if we should practice safer sex.  I strongly disagree with that advice.

This might have sounded less ludicrous ten years ago. These days, it just sounds silly. While 24,354 AIDS cases in a population of 200,000,000 plus people may not seem like a lot, remember that it does not reflect HIV infection, but reported AIDS cases.

Firstly, most "Aids cases" are perfectly well and will remain that way unless they poison themselves to death with "anti-HIV" toxins. The diagnosis is meaningless. Secondly, claims to know how or where alleged "HIV infection" occurred are baseless. There is no scientific basis for claims of "HIV infection" at all, and "Aids" is established NOT to be infectious by its epidemiology, confirming work in the mid-eighties by Prof. Duesberg. The impossibility of isolating even a single "HIV" has led several eminent scientists to publicly doubt whether any such "virus" exists at all. The rate is increasing exponentially, and it is not uniformly distributed among all socioecononic racial, or lifestyle groups.  Unprotected sex with partners of uncertain serostatus is indeed risky business.

Unmitigated claptrap. Sex, of any kind, has no role in the "Aids" delusion. Claims that the failure of "Safe Sex" campaigns would lead to an avalanche of "HIV infection" have been proved to be categorically wrong. "Safe Sex" is practiced less and less, but "Aids" has disappeared, mainly due to disbelief and suspicion, particularly in the UK.  John —   "Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"                  Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.

Response:

Does anyone know how frequently viruses mutate? My CFS friend believes flu viruses mutate every day. I doubt it. I’ve heard that HIV mutates. How can people say that the AIDS virus doesn’t exist when the PCR test is a blood test for the number of the viruses (HIV)??? very confusing.

Hi Mike, Actually viruses don’t mutate at all.  It’s just that the host cell has trouble always reproducing their body parts the same each time… kind of like GM or Chrysler. People can say very easily things they like to hear. However, mental masturbation, self-delusion, denial and asyndetic rhetoric is not equivalent to simple evidence. HIV not only exists, it has evolved.  Gee, big news. Best of luck always, Pandoc

Response:

This is a crock of sh*t.

wait!  i think you’re confused.  the article you quote is rational.  your post is a crock.  my female friend who was infected by her only partner, her husband, wouldn’t know poppers if you hit her over the head with them.  and she doesn’t use drugs.  so, what are the other factors for HIV transmission then if: she didn’t become infected by: bad blood transfusion drug use gay sex infected blood products tell me, how did she become infected?  is this a case similar to the legendary virgin birth? durtro http://members.aol.com/durtro/endtimes.htm

Response:

writes: ABSTRACT: Worldwide, heterosexual contact accounts for the majority of adult HIV infections[1].  … … we reviewed data … and predicted trends in heterosexually aquired HIV infection

This is a crock of sh*t.  There is no evidence of transmission in any of these cases.  If they are not amongst homosexuals or IV drug users, they are assumed to be heterosexually transmitted. Want to learn the cold truth about heterosexually transmitted AIDS? The following is a transcript of Christine Johnson on my program, "Accent on Wellness."  Christine wrote an layperson’s version of the scientific evaluation and denunciation of HIV testing.  It(and more) can be found at: http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/phony.html It was transcribed by Tom Hudson. "It was all just totally fortuitous from day one how I found out that AIDS, as most people know it, is a hoax. "It all started when I was wandering through a bookstore and saw a copy of Michael Fumento’s book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. They had one copy there and I read it and I thought: "Wow, this is amazing. Heterosexuals aren’t in danger? Wow!" "Fumento is a medical statistician, and he goes through all the stats from the Center For Disease Control and points out to you how very few heterosexuals have AIDS, and just what the risk factors are, which are next to nothing for heterosexuals. Now Michael Fumento believes that HIV causes AIDS, so you have to deal with that, but I like him. I get his magazine articles because he really zings in on this heterosexual AIDS non-epidemic. Even if you think that HIV causes AIDS there is still no heterosexual risk for it, none, not any at all. If you are heterosexual, I would say that taking the antibody test, with its extremely high rate of false positive results, is the biggest risk, because if it comes back positive, you can become terrified. People at no risk, with no unhealthy behavior, people I have talked to, have spent two or three weeks waiting for their test results and they were just quaking with fear. One guy said to me, "If my test comes back antibody positive, I"m going to kill myself. This guy had gone to see a couple prostitutes, so he was worried. "If you read the publication Rethinking AIDS or any of Robert Root-Bernstein’s works, you will find out that many different studies have been done of prostitutes which show that they don’t have any more HIV antibodies than anybody else, unless there are drugs in the equation. The drug using prostitutes have HIV antibody positive tests. If they don’t use drugs they are the same as everybody else. The customers of prostitutes are not getting AIDS anyhow, anyway you look at it. Maybe they don’t have to worry at all. In Belle Glade, Florida it was claimed that there was a big pocket of heterosexual AIDS there. They said these people weren’t IV drug users, but what they didn’t tell you was, no, they were crack addicts! "We know now, it is nothing that is transferred through the intravenous needle, its the drugs themselves that are destroying people’s health. Whether they are intravenous drugs or inhaled drugs, the net effect is the same. People are getting sick and they are dying from the drug use, and this is being covered over and they are calling it heterosexual AIDS. It is very easy to blame something on sex because nearly everybody has had it. If you are not zeroing in on things like drug use, you’re going to end up with "Oh, they had sex with so-and-so." But you won’t even notice the fact that they were snorting coke for ten years, or something like that. Even in the early gay cases there was drug use. These cases were a very small part of the gay community. We would actually today call them sex addicts. These are people who were having anonymous sex, multiple times a day with many, many nameless partners. It is very easy to say that they have picked up everything in the book sexually, so [they say] it was transmitted sexually. And that does explain their test results, often. But part of the recreational sex was the recreational drugs. It was rare to see these people without a little jar of amyl nitrite or butyl nitrite inhalers, what they call poppers. John Lauritsen said something very interesting. He said that outside of gay males, very few people even know what poppers are. Back in the days of the sexual revolution in the 60’s and 70’s I met one guy who offered me poppers. And that was it, it was one occasion. I took it once. I didn’t really quite get the drift of how to use it. It wasn’t that great. I was a little bit afraid of it intuitively; it seemed very toxic certainly and a very harsh chemical to me. It is manufactured by Burroughs Wellcome, who make the killer poison AZT. [Sounds like they have  the gay community coming and going." ] [Christine's report, "Playing Russian Roulette in the Laboratory" can be found at the HEAL web site: http://www.aidsnyc.org/heal/index.htm Edward Lieb Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?  Ask for my free report: "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."

Response:

i wish i could believe you, and i'm not a hetero.  i just have the virus too.

Chances are no-one "has the virus". Check out some of the real science about "Aids":  Rethinking AIDS:    http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido/  Professor Duesberg: http://www.duesberg.com  Sumeria:            http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids.html  HEAL:               http://www.aidsnyc.org/heal/index/htm  NY Native:          http://www.refuse-resist.com/iajr/  John --   "HIV is a metaphor for a lot of quasi-related phenomena. No one has ever proved its existence as a virus. We don't believe it exists."          Dr. V. F. Turner, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia

Response:

Here's an excerpt from http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/phony.html

<snip Even if you think that HIV causes AIDS there is still no

heterosexual risk for it, none, not any at all. If you are heterosexual tell that to my dear friend, who, after 20 years of monogamous marriage to one man, the only other human being she had ever been intimate with, is hiv pos with a low CD4 count and a measurable viral load. i wish i could believe you, and i'm not a hetero.  i just have the virus too. durtro http://members.aol.com/durtro/endtimes.htm

Response:

[ Idiotic, unsubstantiated ramblings excised ]     John Lauritsen is a very dishonest man.  He has never dealt with the many studies which have statistically separated popper use from HIV infection, in their impact on AIDS risk.  He does not dare debate this issue on misc.health.aids, because he would find himself in big trouble explaining the facts, like Californ has.  So he stays undercover and snipes.

John Lauritsen has debated this issue on several occasions on m.h.a. He has been a regular poster. Neither he nor Californ have ever found themselves in "big trouble" here. That distinction belongs to you alone, I believe, and is why you make fewer rash promises these days, and no predictions at all. (And no bets.)  John —   "Predictions that "HIV" would put at risk all sexually active people have proved completely ill-conceived. Even female prostitutes do not get Aids unless they are also heavy drug users."                   from _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_,                                              by Neville Hodgkinson

Response:

AIDS 8, Suppl. 1: S109-S117 (1994) D.R. Prevots, R.A. Ancelle-Park, J.J. Neal and R.S. Remis The Epidemiology of Heterosexually Aquired HIV Infection and AIDS in Western Industrialized Countries. ABSTRACT: Worldwide, heterosexual contact accounts for the majority of adult HIV infections[1].  … … we reviewed data … and predicted trends in heterosexually aquired HIV infection 1: _AIDS in the World_  J.Mann et al. (eds) 1992    Harvard University Press. Canada  7,772 adolescent AIDS cases,           608 (6%) aquired heterosexually Europe 93,348 adolescent AIDS cases,         9,438 (10%) aquired heterosexually United States        334,344 adult/adolescent AIDS cases,         24,354 (7%) aquired heterosexually         This data as of 1993.  The incidence of heterosexual HIV transmission is climbing exponentially in industrialized countries. "himself" and others on this newsgroup prefer that nobody gets tested for HIV, that we all wait until hundreds of thousands of people are dying, before we decide if we should practice safer sex.  I strongly disagree with that advice. While 24,354 AIDS cases in a population of 200,000,000 plus people may not seem like a lot, remember that it does not reflect HIV infection, but reported AIDS cases. The rate is increasing exponentially, and it is not uniformly distributed among all socioecononic racial, or lifestyle groups.  Unprotected sex with partners of uncertain serostatus is indeed risky business. — |HIV Database                 (505) 665-1970                         | |Los Alamos National Lab      http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/index.html     | |Los Alamos, NM 87544  U.S.A. http://www.t10.lanl.gov/~btf/home.html |

Response:

writes: If you read the publication Rethinking AIDS or any of Robert Root-Bernstein’s works, you will find out that many different studies have been done of prostitutes which show that they don’t have any more HIV antibodies than anybody else, unless there are drugs in the equation.

   If you’ve read Root-Bernstein’s book, you will know there there is no way to say whether or no prostitutes have "no more" antibodies than "anybody else."   Why are you talking about when you say "anybody else."?  College coeds?  Homosexual men?  IV drug users?  It is true that "upper class prostitutes" (call-girls) have a relatively low level of antibodies, but then they deal with a middle and upperclass heterosexual clientelle who are much less likely to infect them.  So it’s not incredibly surprising.  Innercity street hookers who trade sex for drugs not only take drugs, but they naturally deal with people who use drugs (including IV drugs), and who trade homosexual acts for drugs.  Naturally, they’re going to get HIV more often.  If the HIV test was meaningless, by the way, you wouldn’t see a difference between these groups of prostitutes in the HIV test, anyway. The drug using prostitutes have HIV antibody positive tests.

Yep.  So what? If they don’t use drugs they are the same as everybody else.

Again, so what?  I doubt that a study has ever been done to see if use or non use of NON-IV drugs among street prostitutes is an independent risk factor for HIV positivity, but even if it was, it wouldn’d be a very strong peice of evidence.  The clients of a drug-using prostitute (who pay in drugs) are going to be a different sort of person. If you want to see if drug use per se makes you HIV positive, you need to look at HIV-positivity specifically in drug users.  What you find is that HIV positivity correlates with receptive homosexual activity, receptive heterosexual activity with drug users, and IV drug use with sharing of needles and syringes.  There is NO correlation with drug use per se which is independent of these factors.  The customers of prostitutes are not getting AIDS anyhow, anyway you look at it. Maybe they don’t have to worry at all. In Belle Glade, Florida it was claimed that there was a big pocket of heterosexual AIDS there. They said these people weren’t IV drug users, but what they didn’t tell you was, no, they were crack

addicts!    Female crack addicts trading sex for crack. We know now, it is nothing that is transferred through the intravenous needle, its the drugs themselves that are destroying people’s health.

   We know no such thing.  In fact, we know that the probability development of AIDS in people after a transfusion is a statistical function of the lifestyle of the person who gave the blood.  Ipso facto, this is a blood-borne disease.  You cannot deny this without denying the studies, and calling the scientists who did them liars. And if you’re ready to do that with any study you disagree with, how then are you ever to know the truth?  Your truth is certainly not based on "evidence," for you reject any evidence which doesn’t show what you like.  For example, I do not deny the association with AIDS and drug use, but I think it has been amply shown that this association is merely a marker for HIV infection, which itself is a result IV works sharing and promiscuous sex. Whether they are intravenous drugs or inhaled drugs, the net effect is the same. People are getting

sick and they are dying from the drug use, and this is being covered over and they are calling it heterosexual AIDS.<    People are also dying of AIDS after transfusions, and they need to try to cover these deaths up in the total death rate in order not to have to deal with them.  But cause of death matters, and lumping all kinds of death into one package is dishonesty.  A prime failing with AIDS skeptics. It is very easy to blame something on sex because nearly everybody has

had it. If you are not zeroing in on things like drug use, you’re going to end up with "Oh, they had sex with so-and-so." But you won’t even notice the fact that they were snorting coke for ten years, or something like that.<    In the studies of heterosexual men, of course, everybody had had sex.  However, not everyone had used drugs.  In the Vancouver study, there were 19 men with AIDS who hadn’t used drugs at all (all were HIV-positive).  In the MACS cohort among men who did use drugs, extent of drug use didn’t correlate with AIDS risk.  However, a history of having sex with someone in whom AIDS later devleped, was an independent risk factor. Even in the early gay cases there was drug use.

" Even in the early cases?"  What a laugh.  The highest drug use was in the early cases.  It is the later cases and the cohort studies which show AIDS in non-drug users (and yes, this is before 1987 and AZT).  These cases were a very small part of the gay community. We would actually today call them sex addicts. These are people who were having anonymous sex, multiple times a day with many, many nameless partners. It is very easy to say that they have picked up everything in the book sexually, so [they say] it was transmitted sexually. And that does explain their test results, often. But part of the recreational sex was the

recreational drugs. It was rare to see these people without a little jar of amyl nitrite or butyl nitrite inhalers, what they call poppers.

    Yes, and in order to differentiate these two factors, you must control for HIV infection while looking at popper use, and then control for popper use while looking at HIV infection.  This has been done (see the Ascher study).  The result:  it’s HIV, not the poppers. John Lauritsen said something very interesting.

    John Lauritsen is a very dishonest man.  He has never dealt with the many studies which have statistically separated popper use from HIV infection, in their impact on AIDS risk.  He does not dare debate this issue on misc.health.aids, because he would find himself in big trouble explaining the facts, like Californ has.  So he stays undercover and snipes.                                      Steve Harris, M.D.                

Response:

Here’s an excerpt from http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/phony.html It was submitted by Tom Hudson and is a transcript of Christine Johnson speaking on my cable show "Accent on Wellness."  Christine has written extensively on the AIDS hoax and particularly the flaws in the testing: <<It was all just totally fortuitous from day one how I found out that AIDS, as most people know it, is a hoax. It all started when I was wandering through a bookstore and saw a copy of Michael Fumento’s book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. They had one copy there and I read it and I thought: "Wow, this is amazing. Heterosexuals aren’t in danger? Wow!" Fumento is a medical statistician, and he goes through all the stats from the Center For Disease Control and points out to you how very few heterosexuals have AIDS, and just what the risk factors are, which are next to nothing for heterosexuals. Now Michael Fumento believes that HIV causes AIDS, so you have to deal with that, but I like him. I get his magazine articles because he really zings in on this heterosexual AIDS non-epidemic. Even if you think that HIV causes AIDS there is still no heterosexual risk for it, none, not any at all. If you are heterosexual, I would say that taking the antibody test, with its extremely high rate of false positive results, is the biggest risk, because if it comes back positive, you can become terrified. People at no risk, with no unhealthy behavior, people I have talked to, have spent two or three weeks waiting for their test results and they were just quaking with fear. One guy said to me, "If my test comes back antibody positive, I"m going to kill myself. This guy had gone to see a couple prostitutes, so he was worried. If you read the publication Rethinking AIDS or any of Robert Root-Bernstein’s works, you will find out that many different studies have been done of prostitutes which show that they don’t have any more HIV antibodies than anybody else, unless there are drugs in the equation. The drug using prostitutes have HIV antibody positive tests. If they don’t use drugs they are the same as everybody else. The customers of prostitutes are not getting AIDS anyhow, anyway you look at it. Maybe they don’t have to worry at all. In Belle Glade, Florida it was claimed that there was a big pocket of heterosexual AIDS there. They said these people weren’t IV drug users, but what they didn’t tell you was, no, they were crack addicts! We know now, it is nothing that is transferred through the intravenous needle, its the drugs themselves that are destroying people’s health. Whether they are intravenous drugs or inhaled drugs, the net effect is the same. People are getting sick and they are dying from the drug use, and this is being covered over and they are calling it heterosexual AIDS. It is very easy to blame something on sex because nearly everybody has had it. If you are not zeroing in on things like drug use, you’re going to end up with "Oh, they had sex with so-and-so." But you won’t even notice the fact that they were snorting coke for ten years, or something like that. Even in the early gay cases there was drug use. These cases were a very small part of the gay community. We would actually today call them sex addicts. These are people who were having anonymous sex, multiple times a day with many, many nameless partners. It is very easy to say that they have picked up everything in the book sexually, so [they say] it was transmitted sexually. And that does explain their test results, often. But part of the recreational sex was the recreational drugs. It was rare to see these people without a little jar of amyl nitrite or butyl nitrite inhalers, what they call poppers. John Lauritsen said something very interesting. He said that outside of gay males, very few people even know what poppers are. Back in the days of the sexual revolution in the 60’s and 70’s I met one guy who offered me poppers. And that was it, it was one occasion. I took it once. I didn’t really quite get the drift of how to use it. It wasn’t that great. I was a little bit afraid of it intuitively; it seemed very toxic certainly and a very harsh chemical to me. It is manufactured by Burroughs Wellcome, who make the killer poison AZT. [Burroughs Wellcome has the gay community coming and going. ] [Christine Johnson's paper "Playing Russian Roulette in the Laboratory" can be found at the HEAL Web site; www.aidsnyc.org/heal/index.htm.] Edward Lieb Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?  Ask for my free report: "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."

Response:

It makes me ashamed to be British.

I am quite sure the British feel the same way about you! Roger Lipsey just a ripple on still water

Response:

It makes me ashamed to be British.

Well, at least you have something in common with most of your countrymen — they are also no doubt ashamed that you are British. Wally

Response:

What is the nature of the exposure?  The highest risk activities are anal and vaginal intercourse without a condom (there is some, not very strong, evidence that anal intercourse is riskier than vaginal).  There may also be a lesser risk associated with oral sex.  

It is sad to find the "Aids" industry still trying to peddle these discredited notions long after the superstition has been exploded beyond recovery. There is no infectious component in "Aids". It cannot, and never has been, contracted through sexual activity of *any* kind. This has been indispuitably demonstrated in the UK’s experience, where all attempts to terrorise the populaiton into "Safe Sex" have spectacularly failed, but "Aids" vanished without trace as soon as the lies behind it were exposed. Completely contradicting the "Aids industry"’s dire and doom-laden predictions. It is a shameful tribute to the wretched dishonesty of the individuals who benefit from employment in lying agencies such as this "Foundation" that "Aids-terror" continues to be directed at the young and vulnerable. It makes me ashamed to be British. I deeply regret that this useless, wasteful and unnecessary blot on the British medical profession remains in existence, especially as it has been expertly demonstrated that the "Aids" superstition has never amounted to a public health hazard of any kind.  John —   ‘Economists argue that because Aids has not been on the scale predicted, funds allocated since the 80s have been wasted. Economist Robert Whelan, of The Institute of Economic Affairs said, "There has never been a great Epidemic or Pandemic. Aids is very difficult to transmit; it affects very small numbers of people."’                        ITV London Today, "The Epidemic That Never Was".

Response:

You’d have a better chance of being struck by lightening. i’m no statistician but i would say the above is an overly optimistic estimation.

This was reported in the Wall Street Journal on May 1 of last year in an in-depth article showing how the US government had been lying to the public for more than ten years about who is at risk for "AIDS."  Perhaps this year the journal will do a follow up and show us how the US government has been lying about everything else — the virus, the testing and the treatments. Edward Lieb Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?  Ask for my free report: "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."

Response:

For a heterosexual male to have sex with a female does anyone know what the odds of becoming HIV+ would be?

The following is a crude analysis I made based on end of year 1995 CDC statistics which showed 8093 new AIDS cases belonged to the heterosexual contact only risk group. I’ve ignored heterosexuals in the other risk groups and unidentified risks. Note that 1995 new cases for this group represents 20% of the total AIDS cases in this group since reporting began – a strong indicator of growth in this group. Assume that annual additions to this group are constant at this level (a conservative assumption in my opinion – see below), a constant population of individuals who exhibit heterosexual risks *only* of about 130million and an approximate sex-life of about 30years (I’m basically halving the total US population to account for 30 year sex life and over 60yr lifespan). There’s a lot of approximations there but I think they serve to give a conservative measure of the risk of getting AIDS by *only* heterosexual contact and without growth in this risk group. I get, 8093*30yrs/130million = approx. 1 in 535 chance of getting AIDS if you restrict your lifestyle to the heterosexual risk group only with the above assumptions. Of course this assumes that the annual number of new infections in this risk group stays constant. There’s evidence that it’s still growing, however… 3 percent of AIDS cases resulted from heterosexual contact in the years 81-87 where total cases ranged from 300-20,000 cases per year. 10 percent of AIDS cases resulted from heterosexual contact in the years 93-95 where total cases ranged from 74,000-107,000. In 81-87, heterosexual cases were on the order of 300 per year. In 93-95, heterosexual cases were on the order of 8,100-9,800 per year. While there has been a transient settling after the 1993 change, the long term data suggests a considerable growth (about 30X) in this single risk group. Presently, around 1 in 300 Americans are infected with HIV-1…  TI    (AP) Study Estimates One in 300 Americans Infected with HIV  DT    960706  SO    The Associated Press – 6 June 1996; 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New        York, NY 10020.  TX    CHICAGO (AP) – The number of people infected with the AIDS virus        appears to have leveled off at about one of every 300 Americans age 13        and older, with new infections keeping pace with deaths, federal        researchers say.        "We’re running in place, but it’s a deadly place to run," said the        new study’s lead author, Dr. John M. Karon of the Division of HIV/AIDS        Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.        The CDC’s findings were being published in this week’s HIV-theme issue        of The Journal of the American Medical Association and presented        Saturday in Vancouver, British Columbia, in preparation for the 11th        International Conference on AIDS.        The number of people infected with HIV in the United States in 1992        ranged from 650,000 to 900,000, the researchers estimated. Figures        from 1992 are the latest available.        In 1986, the number of infected people was estimated as 550,000 to        650,000. And in 1984, it was believed to be 400,000 to 450,000.        The new figures were derived from AIDS case reports, a national survey        of childbearing women and a national household survey of current        health status.        The study also found that half of all HIV-infected people in 1992 were        men who had sex with men, and that about 25 percent were injection        drug users. In 1984, men who had sex with men represented 62 percent        of all HIV-infected people, with injection drug users accounting for        20 percent. In 1986, those numbers were 64 percent and 25 percent.        The fastest-growing group of infected Americans in 1992 was that of        people infected through heterosexual contact. That group more than        tripled in size from 1986 to 1992, from about 4.5 percent of all HIV        cases in 1986 to 15 percent in 1992.        A much greater share of U.S. men carry the AIDS virus than women. One        in every 160 men was infected in 1992, compared with one in 1,000        women, researchers said.        But infections have made much faster inroads among women in recent        years. The number of women infected in 1992 was at least three times        greater than the number infected in 1984, compared with about a        doubling of infections among men.        Blacks and Hispanics still get a disproportionate share of infections,        among both men and women. One in 50 black men and one in 100 Hispanic        men were infected in 1992, compared with one in 250 white men,        researchers estimated.        And one in 160 black women was infected, along with one in 400        Hispanic women, compared with one in 3,000 white women, they said.        Karon said that although the study and other national HIV studies        indicate HIV prevalence has stabilized, the health emergency isn’t        over.        "Close to three-fourths of those infected have not yet been diagnosed        with AIDS, which means we’re going to have a very substantial medical        and public health problem for years to come," he said.        Alfred Saah, associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins        School of Public Health, said he is concerned that declarations that        the number of HIV infections has stabilized would slow prevention        efforts.        Dr. Thomas Coates, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies        at the University of California at San Francisco, said he found the        increase in HIV infections among young men and black men most        alarming.        And he said he thought the study should have called for more        preventive efforts, like sex education for teen-agers and needle        exchange programs.        "This is a totally unnecessary situation. We should not have stable        prevalence," Coates said.

Response:

For a heterosexual male to have sex with a female does anyone know what the odds of becoming HIV+ would be?

Response:

For a heterosexual male to have sex with a female does anyone know what the odds of becoming HIV+ would be?

You’d have a better chance of being struck by lightening. Edward Lieb Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?  Ask for my free report: "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."

Response:

You’d have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

i’m no statistician but i would say the above is an overly optimistic estimation. durtro http://members.aol.com/durtro/endtimes.htm confrontational aids art

Response:

writes For a heterosexual male to have sex with a female does anyone know what the odds of becoming HIV+ would be?

I’m sorry, but it is not a meaningful question.  The answer depends on: How likely is it that the woman is HIV infected?  This varies hugely from country to country, region to region, and between different social groups  within a given area. How infectious is she?  There is increasing evidence that infectiousness varies during the course of HIV infection.  People are probably most infectious to others for a short period after they first become infected (and when they may still test HIV *negative*).  Infectiousness then dies down during the long symptom-free period, before gradually increasing again as the immune system is damaged before and around the time that AIDS develops.   What is the nature of the exposure?  The highest risk activities are anal and vaginal intercourse without a condom (there is some, not very strong, evidence that anal intercourse is riskier than vaginal).  There may also be a lesser risk associated with oral sex.   — Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk/ Education for HIV/AIDS policy, prevention and professional practice BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK

Response:

Question:

Before you flame this, Fred, just know that I am only reporting my own experiences.  They’re not necessarily applicable to everyone, a fact of which I am painfully aware as I see friends who are unresponsive to certain medications get sicker.

That’s the main point I have been trying to make. However, while you are giving a glowing report, there are many many others out there who have crashed on these drugs and when they hear other guys boasting of their own success, how do you think that makes them feel? — especially when they already have gotten the message that their failure may have been due to not dosing correctly, etc — in other words, they are made to feel that their failure is their own fault when it isn’t. I think everyone should have hope and a good outlook, I am just warning about this drunken enthusiasm that has become almost frantic. I am not talking about you or others on this board when I say this — I have been witnessing lots of manic enthusiasm that makes the comments on this board pale in comparison (I will post an example soon). The other side of this double-edged sword is seen when people get overly enthusiastic about their "success" that they cannot see their health in realistic terms. When their CD4s go back below baseline and the viral load starts moving back up (often way higher than before) then how do you think they feel? I haven’t even raised the issue of the "back to work" hype, but that is just another manifestation of this problem that is heaping more guilt into the mix. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A few individuals in this group have argued that their personal experiences with the combination/protease inhibitor cocktail drugs is all the proof they need to convince themselves and everyone else that these drugs "work". While I don’t dispute the claims of these individuals, I simply point out that their statements are simply anecdotal reports and such reports are subjective (especially when the person has an obvious emotional attachment to the treatment and is clearly being defensive in regards to their treatment decisions). Unfortunately, these individuals seem to be unaware of what is actually happening to many other patients on these drugs and what the doctors in the treatment community ahve been reporting. I have archived far too many posts and messages from doctors and patients to put up on this board. … Yes, Fred, but there are an _awful_ lot of those anecdotal reports.  (I know, so what.)  I just wish more of them would post here.

I have no problem with reports of success, just the mania that seems to go with it. I recently posted the results of an herb study — take a close look at it. I, for one, would be the last person to say that these medications are going to work for everyone.  Clearly, they don’t.  I’ve been lucky.  I believe that my body responded well to medications because it was basically naive to such substances.  (I spent most of my life very healthy — taking nothing more than aspirin — until my first "OI" — an outbreak of shingles in 1992 .  I have always foregone OTC symptom relief, relying on my body to take care of itself.  Now, it needs help.)

I hope your luck continues. I don’t dispute that some people are doing well on these drugs, and I understand your position in being focused on the results. However, there is a convincing amount of scientific research that strongly suggests that these drugs are accomplishing the benefit you feel through pathways other than those claimed for these drugs. In fact, the other pathways offer a much more accurate accounting for the "side-effects", "resistance" and the symptomatic improvement. I will offer that research for those who are interested in considering alternative explanations that have the same result, but may not have the same outcome — it isn’t right to offer false expectations of outcome as bait to get people on these drugs, especially those who are healthy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a message from a Harvard doctor I received about 2 weeks ago:          We are seeing a number of cases of extensive inflammatory          reactions in patients who had MAI and are on triple drug          antiretroviral therapy (including a protease inhibitor).          This might be a consideration here, esp given the rising alk          phos and no increase in bilirubin and transaminases.  One          person we are now taking care of had MAI in his lungs and          mediastinal lymph nodes, and came in with pulmonary          infiltrates and lymphadenopathy.  Mediastinoscopy was done          and granulomas were seen.  No MAI could be cultured, and          none could be seen with special stains and DNA probes of the          tissue.  He did very well when put on steroids for a while. Of course steroids (corticosteroids such as prednisone) are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive — this is why this guy "did very well". It is certainly well-known that MAI can be very difficult to "see."  No argument there.  (I’ve done my reading on that one.  There are some good articles in Project Inform (http://www.projinf.org/) that address this issue.)  I wonder if he was taking corticosteroids

Co-pathogens can break out when you do something that adds to the immune suppression (suntanning, stress, prednisone, etc.). That is a risk with the cocktails, especially for the non-responders. be awfully rough on the body – I had some heavy prednisone when I was hospitalized with PCP used as an anti-inflammatory, and I hated it) or anabolics.  Last summer, I did the standard 11-week cycle of deca, testosterone and B-12 to combat wasting from MAC, and it worked wonders for me.  20 pounds in two weeks, and I’ve continued (although at a slower rate) upward since then.

The anabolics are making KS worse and adding to immune suppression and in some cases, progression of disease. Mark Milano discussed his experience in this regard (drop in CD4s) in one or more posts (sci.med.aids database would have his post). It is not uncommon to see people with late-stage disease break out with OIs after using the triple drug cocktails — MAC (MAI) is one of the most common OIs in these guys. I have seen MAC outbreaks in a few patients within a few days of starting a protease inhibitor cocktail. At least in my case, my OIs were all in place _before_ I started taking any antiretroviral medications, and long before I started Norvir.  

MAC and CMV etc. are subclinical in nearly everyone who is positive. All these bugs need is for the immune system to drop its guard just long enough. I dealt with them one at a time:  PCP, TB, MAC.  My health is still not perfect — I have "up" days and I have "down" days.  But I was having nothing but "way down" days before I added Norvir to my diet.  Which doesn’t mean that’s how it will work for someone else.

Right. I like hearing about people feeling better, but I am afraid for them for good reasons. If someone is heading down fast, then they should give these drugs a go before they do. On the other hand, I have seen patients return to health when they have a good doctor who knows what to do (they call it the "practice" of medicine for a reason). I don’t say that anything you believe and post here is wrong.  I’m not a scientist or researcher.  I’m just a simple, ordinary, guy-next-door with AIDS.  I can only report my experiences and hope that some see them as an alternative.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately some of the lively personalities on this board like to portray my point of view much different than it really is. Some think I am "anti-drug" and they are dead wrong and I tell them that — but they keep repeating that ridiculous charge. In fact, I may be too radical for them in the sense that I believe that ALL THE DRUGS should be available to anyone who has a life-threatening disease, whether the drug is marijuana, crixivan or even heroine. The government has no business telling you what is bad for you under these circumstances. However, there comes a moral obligation to also provide you with ALL the information about those drugs without sugar-coating anything, and that is what is happening today. The drug companies hold back a LOT of data that the public should have access to, and that is wrong. So if I am "anti" anything, I am anti-bad and anti-cherry-picked data — if you are buying these drugs, the drug companies owe you the whole enchilada, not just the cheese. Fred

Response:

Before you flame this, Fred, just know that I am only reporting my own experiences.  They’re not necessarily applicable to everyone, a fact of which I am painfully aware as I see friends who are unresponsive to certain medications get sicker. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A few individuals in this group have argued that their personal experiences with the combination/protease inhibitor cocktail drugs is all the proof they need to convince themselves and everyone else that these drugs "work". While I don’t dispute the claims of these individuals, I simply point out that their statements are simply anecdotal reports and such reports are subjective (especially when the person has an obvious emotional attachment to the treatment and is clearly being defensive in regards to their treatment decisions). Unfortunately, these individuals seem to be unaware of what is actually happening to many other patients on these drugs and what the doctors in the treatment community ahve been reporting. I have archived far too many posts and messages from doctors and patients to put up on this board. …

Yes, Fred, but there are an _awful_ lot of those anecdotal reports.  (I know, so what.)  I just wish more of them would post here. I, for one, would be the last person to say that these medications are going to work for everyone.  Clearly, they don’t.  I’ve been lucky.  I believe that my body responded well to medications because it was basically naive to such substances.  (I spent most of my life very healthy — taking nothing more than aspirin — until my first "OI" — an outbreak of shingles in 1992 .  I have always foregone OTC symptom relief, relying on my body to take care of itself.  Now, it needs help.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a message from a Harvard doctor I received about 2 weeks ago:          We are seeing a number of cases of extensive inflammatory          reactions in patients who had MAI and are on triple drug          antiretroviral therapy (including a protease inhibitor).          This might be a consideration here, esp given the rising alk          phos and no increase in bilirubin and transaminases.  One          person we are now taking care of had MAI in his lungs and          mediastinal lymph nodes, and came in with pulmonary          infiltrates and lymphadenopathy.  Mediastinoscopy was done          and granulomas were seen.  No MAI could be cultured, and          none could be seen with special stains and DNA probes of the          tissue.  He did very well when put on steroids for a while. Of course steroids (corticosteroids such as prednisone) are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive — this is why this guy "did very well".

It is certainly well-known that MAI can be very difficult to "see."  No argument there.  (I’ve done my reading on that one.  There are some good articles in Project Inform (http://www.projinf.org/) that address this issue.)  I wonder if he was taking corticosteroids (which unarguably can be awfully rough on the body – I had some heavy prednisone when I was hospitalized with PCP used as an anti-inflammatory, and I hated it) or anabolics.  Last summer, I did the standard 11-week cycle of deca, testosterone and B-12 to combat wasting from MAC, and it worked wonders for me.  20 pounds in two weeks, and I’ve continued (although at a slower rate) upward since then. It is not uncommon to see people with late-stage disease break out with OIs after using the triple drug cocktails — MAC (MAI) is one of the most common OIs in these guys. I have seen MAC outbreaks in a few patients within a few days of starting a protease inhibitor cocktail.

At least in my case, my OIs were all in place _before_ I started taking any antiretroviral medications, and long before I started Norvir.  I dealt with them one at a time:  PCP, TB, MAC.  My health is still not perfect — I have "up" days and I have "down" days.  But I was having nothing but "way down" days before I added Norvir to my diet.  Which doesn’t mean that’s how it will work for someone else. I don’t say that anything you believe and post here is wrong.  I’m not a scientist or researcher.  I’m just a simple, ordinary, guy-next-door with AIDS.  I can only report my experiences and hope that some see them as an alternative.

Response:

Same here, except I didn’t have TB, I got CMV. And I don’t take Norvir, I take Crixivan. All the OI’s came before the heavy-duty medications, and the infections were so debilitating, and left me so weak and dispirited, that I would wake each day with the feeling: "I will never be healthier than I am right now." Because of the PI, that turned out not to be true. For months, my health and the way I feel has improved by the week. I can work again, I have gained entirely too much weight (when before I was losing 5 pounds a week without trying), and even the hair I lost through radiation is coming back. Fred Shaw recently wondered in a post, "Why are these guys so afraid of me?" Well, I’m certainly not afraid of him for myself. He’s not a doctor, he doesn’t do any research himself, he doesn’t even cite any research himself, and he has a fairly smooth tongue. In the absence of intellectual back-up, a smooth tongue can be a dangerous thing. I have no doubt that there are men and women out there who want to believe that this expensive, hard-to-tolerate cocktail is poison and will do them no good. Shaw’s palaver may be the modicum of encouragement they need to forego the medication that could give them back their lives, or might prevent the near total destruction of the immune system that HIV wreaks, when it is allowed to develop unchecked. I’m not afraid for myself, and no more are you, I suspect. This is a debate only in form; in substance, the choice for AIDS sufferers may be life or death. If Shaw is wrong, he shrugs his shoulders and finds another set of news-groups to harrass; but those who followed his advice are sick or dead. MMM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At least in my case, my OIs were all in place _before_ I started taking any antiretroviral medications, and long before I started Norvir.  I dealt with them one at a time:  PCP, TB, MAC.  My health is still not perfect — I have "up" days and I have "down" days.  But I was having nothing but "way down" days before I added Norvir to my diet.  Which doesn’t mean that’s how it will work for someone else.

Response:

A few individuals in this group have argued that their personal experiences with the combination/protease inhibitor cocktail drugs is all the proof they need to convince themselves and everyone else that these drugs "work". While I don’t dispute the claims of these individuals, I simply point out that their statements are simply anecdotal reports and such reports are subjective (especially when the person has an obvious emotional attachment to the treatment and is clearly being defensive in regards to their treatment decisions). Unfortunately, these individuals seem to be unaware of what is actually happening to many other patients on these drugs and what the doctors in the treatment community ahve been reporting. I have archived far too many posts and messages from doctors and patients to put up on this board. Here is one I happened to read today: This is a message from a Harvard doctor I received about 2 weeks ago:          We are seeing a number of cases of extensive inflammatory          reactions in patients who had MAI and are on triple drug          antiretroviral therapy (including a protease inhibitor).          This might be a consideration here, esp given the rising alk          phos and no increase in bilirubin and transaminases.  One          person we are now taking care of had MAI in his lungs and          mediastinal lymph nodes, and came in with pulmonary          infiltrates and lymphadenopathy.  Mediastinoscopy was done          and granulomas were seen.  No MAI could be cultured, and          none could be seen with special stains and DNA probes of the          tissue.  He did very well when put on steroids for a while.

Of course steroids (corticosteroids such as prednisone) are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive — this is why this guy "did very well". It is not uncommon to see people with late-stage disease break out with OIs after using the triple drug cocktails — MAC (MAI) is one of the most common OIs in these guys. I have seen MAC outbreaks in a few patients within a few days of starting a protease inhibitor cocktail. Fred

Response: