Comments Thread For: Pacquiao: In The Eyes of The People - I Beat Floyd Mayweather

[travestyny]

.

This is simple logic. Have you taken any logic courses? I aced all of mine at an Ivy League University. Perhaps you should go enroll in a few.

This is specific about WADA screening with GC/MS:

Screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.

This can be simplified for you into: If a screening test is done, we are not looking for individual compounds. Correct? This makes sense because the machine is not optimized for individual compounds. It states this clearly above. And yes, it states this FOR THE GC/MS as used IN A WADA SCREENING TEST.

We have:
A: A screening test is performed
B: testing is performed for individual compounds

If a screening test is performed, then testing is not performed for individual compounds.

A --> ~B

Now, the contrapositive will also be correct:

IF testing is performed for individual compounds, then a screening test was not performed.

B --> ~A

Simple logic. It wasn't a screening test if the data for a single metabolite was found. The only other option is that it was a CONFIRMATION TEST.

Class dismissed, you big dummy!

[ADP02]

What the actual **** are you talking about? No one is concerned about any screening tests except for you. The screening is not important. The confirmation is important. Why would they have to say that there was a positive screen???? We know they found marijuana, and we know they quantified the amount of marijuana metabolite. You want them to discuss the screen when they confirmed an amount below the threshold.

That's really ******.





LMAOOOOOO. YOU STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND, CAN YOU.

And what's up with your false quotation? How many times are you going to type it. You are a sad sad person if you have to keep lying to yourself this way. LMAOOOOO

There was no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE!

THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS, RIGHT? RIGHTTTTT? LOL





QUESTION 1: DID SMRTL GIVE A FINAL CONCENTRATION OF ONLY THE MARIJUANA METABOLITE?

QUESTION 2: ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION ABOVE, DOES THIS MEAN THAT IT WAS A SCREEN OR A CONFIRMATION?


LMAOOOOO!!!!

This is simple logic. Have you taken any logic courses? I aced all of mine at an Ivy League University. Perhaps you should go enroll in a few.

This is specific about WADA screening with GC/MS:

Screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.

This can be simplified for you into: If a screening test is done, we are not looking for individual compounds. Correct? This makes sense because the machine is not optimized for individual compounds. It states this clearly above. And yes, it states this FOR THE GC/MS as used IN A WADA SCREENING TEST.

We have:
A: A screening test is performed
B: testing is performed for individual compounds

If a screening test is performed, then testing is not performed for individual compounds.

A --> ~B

Now, the contrapositive will also be correct:

IF testing is performed for individual compounds, then a screening test was not performed.

B --> ~A

Simple logic. It wasn't a screening test if the data for a single metabolite was found. The only other option is that it was a CONFIRMATION TEST.

Class dismissed, you big dummy!

Is this a new form of DEFLECTION on your part? Geeez!


You keep on showing that you do not understand this.


Its not that screening test of SMRTL cannot find the marijuana metabolite and the concentration levels. It CAN!!! What is meant and I stated before is that there is potential for false positive so it needs to be confirmed by more rigorous, extensive and time consuming processes.

Secondly, you said that screenings is just to find marijuana but that is wrong too! It checks for thresholds. If the test can tell that its below or above a certain threshold then the test is able to discern the THC metabolite in question. BUT as I stated, there is potential for false positives and so more tests are required.


SMRTL did NOT state that their SCREENING by way of GCMS turned up positive (OVER THE THRESHOLD) and their confirmation process changed it to a negative result. IF YOU THINK THAT IS THE CASE, YOU NEED TO SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS STATED!!! and you bet that this is important!!! The lawyers would be questioning SMRTL why the screening and confirmation had a different result .... but that is logical ...


Logic? You cannot even understand what 10 FOLD means!!! While there are several formulas, the most basic should be understood..... that its 10X more or 10X less .....

To simplify what I'm saying. You first need to understand this before you can apply logic!



.

[travestyny]

Is this a new form of DEFLECTION on your part? Geeez!


You keep on showing that you do not understand this.


Its not that screening test of SMRTL cannot find the marijuana metabolite and the concentration levels. It CAN!!! What is meant and I stated before is that there is potential for false positive so it needs to be confirmed by more rigorous, extensive and time consuming processes.

So what you are saying is that WADA is fully capable of getting the concentration of marijuana metabolite on it's screen, yet the screen is unreliable and WADA is ok with that?

You're a moron.

Secondly, you said that screenings is just to find marijuana but that is wrong too! It checks for thresholds. If the test can tell that its below or above a certain threshold then the test is able to discern the THC metabolite in question. BUT as I stated, there is potential for false positives and so more tests are required.

You never explained what the quotation means. I posted it for you over and over. If you are talking about a screen test performed by WADA, here is what they do:

The goal of this article is to provide an inside view of how WADA-accredited laboratories identify athletes that use prohibited substances....
data analysis

gc-ms detects target compounds by comparing the retention time and relative intensities of ion fragments in unknown samples to those obtained for reference compounds. The collected data are reduced to dedicated windows consisting of selected time slices and mass-to-charge (m/z) ions corresponding to the expected retention times and mass spectral fragments for each target compound. interfering peaks and background noise can complicate gc-ms data reading because screening methods are designed to detect entire classes of compounds and are not optimized for individual compounds.

Will you now explain what this means? How do they get the data for a specific compound when this clearly says the machine is not optimized for a specific compound?

SMRTL did NOT state that their SCREENING by way of GCMS turned up positive (OVER THE THRESHOLD) and their confirmation process changed it to a negative result. IF YOU THINK THAT IS THE CASE, YOU NEED TO SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS STATED!!! and you bet that this is important!!! The lawyers would be questioning SMRTL why the screening and confirmation had a different result .... but that is logical ...

I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm going by what Eichner told you, which was regarding Andersen Silva's test, which is the same exact time as Diaz' test. He said they look for any prohibited substance, and they confirm it. Didn't he say that. You gave the quote before I did!

Logic? You cannot even understand what 10 FOLD means!!! While there are several formulas, the most basic should be understood..... that its 10X more or 10X less .....

To simplify what I'm saying. You first need to understand this before you can apply logic!

10 fold? There is no need to understand anything you say because none of it is ever relevant. You talk about diluting 10fold, yet the specific gravity is 1.009 and an 8-fold dilution was listed at 1.005. So what the **** is your point?

[travestyny]

Secondly, you said that screenings is just to find marijuana but that is wrong too! It checks for thresholds. If the test can tell that its below or above a certain threshold then the test is able to discern the THC metabolite in question. BUT as I stated, there is potential for false positives and so more tests are required.
.

Actually, let's do it this way since you keep ducking my questions and you won't step up to my challenge.

Ok. Let's say SMRTL screens with the GC/MS which can separate and look specifically for carboxy-THC. We both agree that GC/MS is much more accurate than immunoassay.

So SMRTL did the initial test and they found the concentrations at 49ng/ml and 61ng/ml. Now you say that this needs to confirmed because there could be false positives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but false positives would mean the results that are initially found would be higher than their true value, correct? Or are you expecting that the confirmation test that you are speaking of will boost the metabolite confirmation from 61ng to 733ng?

That's crazy and you know it.

[ADP02]

So what you are saying is that WADA is fully capable of getting the concentration of marijuana metabolite on it's screen, yet the screen is unreliable and WADA is ok with that?

You're a moron.




You never explained what the quotation means. I posted it for you over and over. If you are talking about a screen test performed by WADA, here is what they do:



Will you now explain what this means? How do they get the data for a specific compound when this clearly says the machine is not optimized for a specific compound?



I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm going by what Eichner told you, which was regarding Andersen Silva's test, which is the same exact time as Diaz' test. He said they look for any prohibited substance, and they confirm it. Didn't he say that. You gave the quote before I did!



10 fold? There is no need to understand anything you say because none of it is ever relevant. You talk about diluting 10fold, yet the specific gravity is 1.009 and an 8-fold dilution was listed at 1.005. So what the **** is your point?

Just to go down to your bargain basement dollarama level of discussions .... You are the moron but as would be the case with someone who is, they do not even know it!



I already explained it BUT you do not get it!!!

A screening is just to weed out the obvious negative ones. There is even a possibility that they missed some positives .... but that is a different discussion. So that is what WADA is OK with when they accept this process. Its the confirmation on presumptive positive screening results that gives the final approval that it was indeed a positive result. Marijuana is based on thresholds. Positive is above the threshold. Negative is below the threshold.

Better explanation: Screening would find a certain concentration level of marijuana metabolite but there may be another compound that is interfering with the THC metabolite and giving a wrong initial result. Only after a confirmation test that is more specific test this interfering compound may be found .... it can be more complicated than that but you should be able to understand if you are reading it objectively.
To simplify this even further ... Its like looking at something thru a microscope or telescope. At a distance, you see an object that appears to be a huge building but to confirm, you zoom in. You still see the initial building but right next to it in the background, you can now see that there is actually 2 buildings. I'm just giving one of several examples.



Oh, and you deflected again the questions. Such as, the screening is against a given threshold. So you are wrong in saying that it checks just to see if there is marijuana. Not more than that. Explain your "logic"


10 FOLD: Point was that I showed you data where there was 8-10 FOLD differences in THC metabolite levels in a very short span of time. So if you take 450 ng/ml and reduce it due to dilution 10X FOLDs, then that would make it 45 ng/ml .... SMRTLs TEST #3 was about 62 ng/ml X 8 FOLD = 490+ while 10X would be 600+.

As for your SG, I told you that SG has its limitations and therefore its not a 1 to 1 correlation with the marijuana metabolite. If it was, then how come this occurred with SMRTLs results? Is the below 1 to 1 relationship? Nope. Not even close! Its because there are other factors to consider. Anyhow, the point is that it was possible to bring down a subjects THC metabolite concentration 8-10+ FOLDs lower in a short period of time but your "expert" tried to portray that that is not the case ....
TEST #1: SG ~1.002 - 49 ng/ml
TEST #3: SG ~1.009 - 62 ng/ml

[ADP02]

Actually, let's do it this way since you keep ducking my questions and you won't step up to my challenge.

Ok. Let's say SMRTL screens with the GC/MS which can separate and look specifically for carboxy-THC. We both agree that GC/MS is much more accurate than immunoassay.

So SMRTL did the initial test and they found the concentrations at 49ng/ml and 61ng/ml. Now you say that this needs to confirmed because there could be false positives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but false positives would mean the results that are initially found would be higher than their true value, correct? Or are you expecting that the confirmation test that you are speaking of will boost the metabolite confirmation from 61ng to 733ng?

That's crazy and you know it.

49ng/ml and 61ng/ml are below the screening threshold so there would be no confirmation test required.

[travestyny]

49ng/ml and 61ng/ml are below the screening threshold so there would be no confirmation test required.

Dude, I'm playing along with your scenario since you won't agree to the challenge. Try to comprehend.


49ng/ml - 1st WADA test
61ng/ml - 2nd WADA test


You say there needs to be a confirmation due to the possibility of FALSE POSITIVES.

If there was a false positive, wouldn't that mean the true value is LOWER....not higher. Certainly not over 600ng higher.


Are you going to answer?

[travestyny]

Just to go down to your bargain basement dollarama level of discussions .... You are the moron but as would be the case with someone who is, they do not even know it!



I already explained it BUT you do not get it!!!

A screening is just to weed out the obvious negative ones. There is even a possibility that they missed some positives .... but that is a different discussion. So that is what WADA is OK with when they accept this process. Its the confirmation on presumptive positive screening results that gives the final approval that it was indeed a positive result. Marijuana is based on thresholds. Positive is above the threshold. Negative is below the threshold.

Better explanation: Screening would find a certain concentration level of marijuana metabolite but there may be another compound that is interfering with the THC metabolite and giving a wrong initial result. Only after a confirmation test that is more specific test this interfering compound may be found .... it can be more complicated than that but you should be able to understand if you are reading it objectively.
To simplify this even further ... Its like looking at something thru a microscope or telescope. At a distance, you see an object that appears to be a huge building but to confirm, you zoom in. You still see the initial building but right next to it in the background, you can now see that there is actually 2 buildings. I'm just giving one of several examples.

Already addressed this. You are saying they look specifically for carboxy-THC, correct? Ok. That's what they found correct? Ok.

Now why would a confirmation analysis show that the result should actually be over 600ng higher? Does that makes sense to you? If the GC/MS can find carboxy-THC and quantify it...why would it be that low? The whole point of your 2 prong test is irrelevant. If we take the 61ng result from SMRTL and gave that sample to Quest, it would fail the screening test which was set at 50ng. The 49ng test would likely fail as well because immunoassay takes into account other compounds, right?

So what you have is Quest saying a sample fails for something over 50ng.

Then Quest saying the result is much greater than 300ng.

That vs.

WADA saying they tested the same individual hours apart two times, and the results were 49ng and 61ng. These results were deemed consistent by Dr. Eichner and by a 20 year MRO.

So how the **** do you have the audacity to say that this 2 prong test is somehow better than the SMRTL tests?

Oh, and you deflected again the questions. Such as, the screening is against a given threshold. So you are wrong in saying that it checks just to see if there is marijuana. Not more than that. Explain your "logic"

Deflected? No. You deflected because I asked you to explain the quotation that clearly states the GC/MS during a screen is not optimized for individual compounds. Yet SMRTL found the data for....an individual compound. Are you ever going to address this? You will keep ducking it like you will keep ducking Eichner saying there is no reason to do a confirmation analysis ON THERE. You blatantly duck these and it's hysterical. Man up and stop being a bltch.

10 FOLD: Point was that I showed you data where there was 8-10 FOLD differences in THC metabolite levels in a very short span of time. So if you take 450 ng/ml and reduce it due to dilution 10X FOLDs, then that would make it 45 ng/ml .... SMRTLs TEST #3 was about 62 ng/ml X 8 FOLD = 490+ while 10X would be 600+.

LMAO. SO what? You can multiply and divide. You want an award?

As for your SG, I told you that SG has its limitations and therefore its not a 1 to 1 correlation with the marijuana metabolite. If it was, then how come this occurred with SMRTLs results? Is the below 1 to 1 relationship? Nope. Not even close! Its because there are other factors to consider. Anyhow, the point is that it was possible to bring down a subjects THC metabolite concentration 8-10+ FOLDs lower in a short period of time but your "expert" tried to portray that that is not the case ....
TEST #1: SG ~1.002 - 49 ng/ml
TEST #3: SG ~1.009 - 62 ng/ml

Again, you bring up 8 fold. Why are you ducking that the very study you got this bullshlt from says 8 fold dilution is a specific gravity of 1.005.

Oh, that's right, there was "something else" done. LMAO

You never showed this dilution in a short period of time. Never. You just lie. He had 1hour 17 minutes to dilute from test 2 to test 3. Do you admit that now? You said before "I understand what you are saying." Do you admit that you were wrong about the time, or do I have to go back and repost that part of the convo?

[ADP02]

Dude, I'm playing along with your scenario since you won't agree to the challenge. Try to comprehend.


49ng/ml - 1st WADA test
61ng/ml - 2nd WADA test


You say there needs to be a confirmation due to the possibility of FALSE POSITIVES.

If there was a false positive, wouldn't that mean the true value is LOWER....not higher. Certainly not over 600ng higher.


Are you going to answer?

Again, the screening test's threshold limit was 150 as well for SMRTL. So both would have come up negative for the screening and as SMRTL stated, there was no need to confirm.

but if you are saying that the initial screening test had for the heck of it, an initial screening threshold of 40, as an example, then yes they would do a confirmation test.

Once they do a confirmation test, you are trying to confirm that it was indeed a positive test.

Would the initial concentration values be lower in the confirmation test? maybe yes, maybe no. If there was something that interfered to bring the values lower then a confirmation test may reveal that the concentration was actually higher than initially presumed during the screening process ... but what is your point?

[travestyny]

Again, the screening test's threshold limit was 150 as well for SMRTL. So both would have come up negative for the screening and as SMRTL stated, there was no need to confirm.

but if you are saying that the initial screening test had for the heck of it, an initial screening threshold of 40, as an example, then yes they would do a confirmation test.

Once they do a confirmation test, you are trying to confirm that it was indeed a positive test.

Would the initial concentration values be lower in the confirmation test? maybe yes, maybe no. If there was something that interfered to bring the values lower then a confirmation test may reveal that the concentration was actually higher than initially presumed during the screening process ... but what is your point?

LMAO. You are having a very hard time understanding this.

Let's call it a screen if you want.

Question 1: Do you agree that the values given by SMRTL were only for the marijuana metabolite (carboxy-THC)?

I think you do, right? ok.

Now what you are saying is that when they confirm...using the same GC/MS test for carboxy-THC, the machine would correct itself and find that the amount is actually much higher? Like 672ng higher.

How does that make sense to you? We are measuring apples to apples.

SMRTL Marijuana Metabolite - 41ng
QUEST Marijuana Metabolite - 733ng
SMRTL Marijuana Metabolite - 61ng


These were the results that the machine put out, correct? Now you are trying to argue that had SMRTL did a confirmation, they may have found that the number was actually 672ng higher? Is that your argument? Something was wrong with this machine twice?

If your argument is instead about dilution, then that has nothing to do with the testing methods. That has something to do with the samples. And your dilution theory is already proven to be shlt.