Post by Mitchell on Apr 20, 2017 1:27:01 GMT
This is redundant, been discussed ad nauseum, old hat, outmoded due to DNA, and just plain tired.
**Edit: Much of the following should be disregarded due to my mistaken belief that EAR/ONS was a secretor. I was wrong and stand corrected. I quickly realized my folly and the thread continues on the right track.**
But, I was always under the impression that those which secrete are less common than those who do not. That was an ignorant view. I did a bunch of reading on the subject and methodology for determining secretor status and learned that between 80-90% in the US are secretors and that a lot of those that do not are Asian(our Asian brothers and sisters are up to twice as likely to not secrete). Well...
So, that really tells us nothing of any import and it is so useless as an identifier that it was never really worth discussion in the first place.
Another thing to note, there wasn't a reliable method for determining secretor status from semen until the mid-nineties. The study in question periodically retested samples left in the open at room temperature until the sample was too degraded to be measured. This degradation was achieved within a matter of weeks. Any samples from EAR would have been rendered useless considering the time frame in question. Also, in the study, the seen samples were verified against results determined through blood and there was not a discrepancy. It was a very sample though. Eighteen men if I recall correctly.
It was an interesting bit of reading. A lot of the, frankly, all of these published scientific papers from academic institutions were poorly written and wouldn't be up to the standards of any quality program I've designed or been party to. A lack of references, ambiguous statements, missing steps, no mention of training standards, and a disregard for metrics was found in all of the documents I read. These are essentially work instructions for potentially providing evidence that could determine whether someone gets convicted of a murder and ends up on death row. It was crazy. I expected a much higher standard from academia and the medical field. I'd hate to see a state run forensic lab.
I have some links I could post but I really think it would be more interesting if others took their own foray into a search engine and discovered different material instead of rereading what I summarized above. I'm interested in different views and interpretations. Additional information. Sources are always good, but I'm not attempting to prove what I stated above as fact, I would rather see if it can be proven incorrect. The truth is out there and I want know it. Absolutes.
However, if anyone does want to read what I summarized above, I will happily provide the sources.
Thank you,
Mitchell
**Edit: Much of the following should be disregarded due to my mistaken belief that EAR/ONS was a secretor. I was wrong and stand corrected. I quickly realized my folly and the thread continues on the right track.**
But, I was always under the impression that those which secrete are less common than those who do not. That was an ignorant view. I did a bunch of reading on the subject and methodology for determining secretor status and learned that between 80-90% in the US are secretors and that a lot of those that do not are Asian(our Asian brothers and sisters are up to twice as likely to not secrete). Well...
So, that really tells us nothing of any import and it is so useless as an identifier that it was never really worth discussion in the first place.
Another thing to note, there wasn't a reliable method for determining secretor status from semen until the mid-nineties. The study in question periodically retested samples left in the open at room temperature until the sample was too degraded to be measured. This degradation was achieved within a matter of weeks. Any samples from EAR would have been rendered useless considering the time frame in question. Also, in the study, the seen samples were verified against results determined through blood and there was not a discrepancy. It was a very sample though. Eighteen men if I recall correctly.
It was an interesting bit of reading. A lot of the, frankly, all of these published scientific papers from academic institutions were poorly written and wouldn't be up to the standards of any quality program I've designed or been party to. A lack of references, ambiguous statements, missing steps, no mention of training standards, and a disregard for metrics was found in all of the documents I read. These are essentially work instructions for potentially providing evidence that could determine whether someone gets convicted of a murder and ends up on death row. It was crazy. I expected a much higher standard from academia and the medical field. I'd hate to see a state run forensic lab.
I have some links I could post but I really think it would be more interesting if others took their own foray into a search engine and discovered different material instead of rereading what I summarized above. I'm interested in different views and interpretations. Additional information. Sources are always good, but I'm not attempting to prove what I stated above as fact, I would rather see if it can be proven incorrect. The truth is out there and I want know it. Absolutes.
However, if anyone does want to read what I summarized above, I will happily provide the sources.
Thank you,
Mitchell