HIV Researchers Caught Fudging Data--Again
Dean
Oh, surely not.
Things like that don't happen. The peer review system is much too robust and sturdy to allow things like that, and anyone who says otherwise is anti-science and anti-medicine.
About
A note on our important Editorial Policy.
Your donations help make Dean's World possible.
Or you could buy something for Dean from his WISH LIST!
Dean Esmay
Editor-In-Chief
Freedomist Network
Individual postings by contributors copyright by their respective authors.
Editor-In-Chief
Contributing Editors
Celia Farber
Categories
Music, Movies, Books, and Etc.
Questioning the HIV/AIDS establishment
Subscribe
Archives
Old Archives
We Support
|
Dean's World uses and recommends:
Next you'll tell us the threat of global warming is exaggerated.
The second link describes a screwup in a medical study. I don't think it says anything about scientists or the progress of science.
The third link lists allegations. It does not provide anything regarding the resolution of those allegations. As such it has no significant information content.
The fourth link shows scientists refining their data with improved methods. Here's a relevant quote:
In the West African country of Ghana, for example, the overall infection rate for people ages 15 to 49 is 2.2 percent. But in Botswana, the national infection rate among the same age group is 34.9 percent. And in the city of Francistown, 45 percent of men and 69 percent of women ages 30 to 34 are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
In other news, the CIA claimed WMD in Iraq were a slam-dunk, but later "refined their data with improved methods."
The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in 1998
So they overstated the problem by a factor of ten. Some refinement.
I'm still wondering where the 7 Million "HIV postives," who were recently cured by the UN, are hanging out:)
The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million.
HankB
In the second place, health authorities operate with a skewed error band. If they overestimate the problem and it turns out to be less serious than expected, then the loss amounts only to whatever health resources that were wasted -- which, given the common failure to respond to warnings quickly enough, is usually pretty small. On the other hand, if they underestimate the magnitude of the problem, then the loss can be catastrophic, because an expanding epidemic grows exponentially until it grows very large. It is therefore the most prudent policy to err on the side of caution when assessing epidemics in their early stages.
Hank, the fact that the UN scientists are revising their estimates downward reflects the above principle I have cited. Moreover, it demonstrates their intellectual integrity. As they get more data, they change their assessments. What would you have them do with additional data? Ignore it?
Wrong, resources are scarce, and misallocation kills people.
Because the AIDS problem was exaggerated, more people died from other causes in which resources could have been better utilized.
Uh, no. The article seems to indicate he falsified several other articles before being caught. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Their motto could be:
Peer review -- a rival researcher might catch you! Eventually. Maybe.
TallDave, your sarcasm is unjustified, for two reasons. In the first place, while they discovered that the epidemic is not as bad as they had feared, they have also confirmed its seriousness in southern Africa. Indeed, the rates of infection they are finding are WORSE than some of the predictions.
It's fully justified. The overall exaggeration was huge, unwarranted, and probably fueled by kickbacks and cronyism.
Additional data?!!? Is this a joke? The whole problem is that they misuse data at ante-natal clinics, where they test pregnant woman, and then try to extrapolate the numbers to entire populations!
It's well documented in the literature that pregnancy can lead to false positives.
Hell, even by shaving off 7 Million (40 Million -> 33 Million), the UN is still shamelessly exaggerating the numbers
Here's Dr. James Chinn:
James Chin, a former World Health Organization AIDS expert who has long been critical of UNAIDS, said that even these revisions may not go far enough. He estimated the number of cases worldwide at 25 million.
"If they're coming out with 33 million, they're getting closer. It's a little high, but it's not outrageous anymore," Chin, author of "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology With Political Correctness," said from Berkeley, Calif
These people are getting paid to exploit and exaggerate the "epidemic"
I could go on and on and on....
Hank "Lawyer to the Oppressed" Barnes
Peer review -- a rival researcher might catch you! Eventually. Maybe.
if someone is determined to lie there isn't much you can do about it no matter what the system.
Oh, I agree completely. I just wish more people realized that.
Yes, but the comparison to make is that between overestimating and underestimating. The costs of underestimating are much higher than the costs of overestimating.
Uh, no. The article seems to indicate he falsified several other articles before being caught.
Indeed so. But the key fact is that he WAS caught, his papers have been discredited, and his career is over. With such ferocious penalties in place, only a real fool would mess with his data. This guy was a real fool. He got caught. He's out. The only thing that proves is that the system works. You seem to be claiming the equivalent of "Since murder continues to take place, the entire police and justice system is wrong and a waste of good money."
It's fully justified. The overall exaggeration was huge, unwarranted, and probably fueled by kickbacks and cronyism.
If you have evidence of kickbacks and cronyism, present it. Unsubstantiated accusations redound to the discredit of the accuser.
The whole problem is that they misuse data at ante-natal clinics, where they test pregnant woman, and then try to extrapolate the numbers to entire populations!
What extrapolation algorithm do they use? What are the flaws in that algorithm?
These people are getting paid to exploit and exaggerate the "epidemic"
You put the word epidemic in scare quotes, as if it is not real. Do you deny the existence of an AIDS epidemic? Your own source sets the number of cases at 25 million. Is that not an epidemic?
Zach, that's not true. The whole idea of peer review is to double-check the claims made in the paper. Most of the time the reviewers -- and there are always several reviewers -- just check the logic to insure that the claims made are actually supported by the data presented. If so, and if the claims are unsurprising, they let it through. This is important: if the claims are unsurprising, that's because they're not going to change anything. But the more surprising the claims, the more thorough the examination. If the claims are really wild, then they'll look hard at the data.
It's my impression that the fellow in question was trying to sneak under the radar by publishing nothingburger papers that didn't surprise anybody. So, even if he had gotten away with it, it wouldn't have done much damage.
Given some of the comments I've seen in this thread, I'm going to ask respondents to this post to read it carefully before responding.
again, if he's determined to lie, a system other than peer-review isn't going to stop that. my point was that dave seemed to be arguing that somehow it's peer-review's fault that this guy took some time to be caught. As you point out, his papers were let through because they were plausible. They would have been let through a different system as well. I don't see where we have any disagreement.
LOL OK Professor
Holy Toledo, Hank did you see that there comment ?
Crawford hasn't been around these here parts long. Guess we'll have to put the know on him when it gits to disgussing the wee hiv and AID syndromals.
Either there are too many PhD's or they ought to be required to have renewable licenses subject to review every two years by a licensing board of reputable assessors.
So how does one go from a dog veterinarian doctor to an hiv retroviral researcher all on the university level ?
I'd like to say more but I'm not up to comparing Iraq military rapes and HIV victims just now.
Whatever it is...
American troops in Iraq have committed more rapes and murders than scientists have fudged HIV data
Ahh, the 'ole "look over there!" maneuver. Good one!
But, speaking of "fudging HIV data," let us return to the immaculate conception of HIV data fudging!
Surely, you knew of this, right Chris?
Cheers,
Hank
1. The report in question presents exactly ONE scientist who fudged his data. Later on, Hank presents the case of ONE other scientist who fudged his data -- and that case is 17 years old!
2. The US military has already convicted more than 2 of its soldiers in cases of rape and murder.
Therefore, more US soldiers have committed rape and/or murder than scientists have fudged AIDS data.
Now, I'm sure that, if you dig deeply, you can find some more examples of questionable reporting. But do you really think that you can find dozens?
I don't condemn the entire US military for the actions of a few bad apples. Why are you condemning the entire scientific community for the actions of a few bad apples?
Zach, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Thanks for setting me straight.
Am I correct in inferring from the sarcastic responses the some of our writers have exhausted their supply of rational arguments?
No. That is never a correct inference. You should unlearn that fallacious thinking pattern. Sarcasm can be -- is not always, but can be -- part of a rational argument.
Huh ?
Chris,
I will refrain from sarcasm.
The "One" scientist I referenced --Robert Gallo -- was the government scientist who claimed to discover the cause of AIDS.
The scientific misconduct was for his papers in the journal Science about this discovery.
In my view, it kinda undermines the science at the inception. Perhaps, just as, the claim of WMD in Iraq, undermined a lot of the rationale for war effort.
In any event, a very interesting book about this was written, called, Science Fictions.
I wager that you are a fan of the NY Times (me too), so here is the Times' review of this book:
The tale of Dr. Robert Gallo’s role in the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS is one of those stories that wouldn’t be believable as fiction...Science Fictions is bursting with allegations leveled at Dr. Gallo, his associates, rivals and enemies, that include deception, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing, overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a clandestine affair with a co-worker, a bribery attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and serial rewritings of history.
The whole history of AIDS research is rife with these fraud, half-truths and scaremongering. That's why many of us are not surprised when it continues to date.
Cheers,
Hank
LOL! Highly politically incorrect, though:)
Hank B
You seemed to have missed this book review of Science Fictions:
"Science Fictions" is indeed aptly titled because it describes the basis of the author's claims -- half-truth, innuendo, and character assassination.
John Crewdson is highly skilled at telling the half-truth. In Science Fictions, he perpetuates the widespread misperception created by Mr. Crewdsen himself 15 years ago that Dr. Robert C. Gallo was convicted of scientific misconduct. The reality is that two federal inquiries evaluated issues of scientific misconduct in the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, directed by Dr. Gallo at the National Cancer Institute. A colleague's case went to trial first and the Departmental Appeals Board, in a 79-page opinion, concluded: "one might anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. That is not the case." DAB Dec. No. 1446 at 1 (Nov. 3, 1993).
The DAB then dropped its case against Gallo. The premise of Crewdson's attack is that there was wrongdoing but the resounding conclusion of the Departmental Appeals Board was that there was none.
While an inconvenient detail for Mr. Crewdson to deal with, he tries in this boringly-detailed book to regurgitate the same old half-truths in hopes that this time, almost 10 years later, the previously dismissed slander will stick or he can make money anyway.
Crewdson's accusation that people died because of a blood test based on Gallo's co-discovery of HIV-1 is not even close to a half-truth. After HIV was proven as the cause of AIDS, great strides were made to protect the blood supply, develop life-saving therapies and begin the long path to developing an effective vaccine. This blood test was the most practical advance in AIDS research, enabling health care workers for the first time to screen for the AIDS virus - leading to a more rapid HIV diagnosis while simultaneously protecting patients receiving blood transfusions.
Crewdson's egregious claim that people died because of the U.S. blood test hides the truth that people in France (not the US) did die - but that they died due to a delay in implementing blood screening there for months following licensure in the U.S. while waiting for a test based on French science to be implemented.
Drs. Luc Montagnier and Gallo recently joined forces under the auspices of the World Foundation for AIDS Research, a UNESCO-sanctioned foundation, to announce an international collaboration designed to speed AIDS vaccine research. As Montagnier, the supposed "arch rival" of Gallo recently stated, it is now time to "make history" rather than relive the distortions of the past. With AIDS now the most devastating epidemic in the history of mankind and still unchecked, with 10 new HIV-1 infections per minute world-wide, with AIDS the leading cause of death among African Americans between age 15 and 45 in the United States, mobilizing science by unifying purpose will catalyze a larger goal of uniting scientists and citizenry in partnership to defeat this great scourge.
The whole history of AIDS research is rife with these fraud, half-truths and scaremongering.
Now THERE'S an example of wild extrapolation! You've got two cases in 17 years and you extrapolate from that to the declaration that the entire AIDS research community, consisting of thousands of scientists, is fraudulent. I suggest that you tone down your rhetoric and confine yourself to statements that are logically consequent to these two cases.
I don't want to be unfair, however. It is conceivable that there really are hundreds of cases of fraudulent science. Not plausible, but conceivable. I will not ask you to provide the entire list. What I will ask you to do is present me with a pointer to a list of actual cases of scientific fraud. I'm not interested in other kinds of malfeasance. If Scientist A slept with Scientist B's wife, I don't care. If Scientist C was a schoolmate of Osama bin Laden, I'm not interested. I am interested only in cases in which the science was significantly compromised by fraud.
Oh, and Hank, your suggestion that Gallo's actions undermine the entire field is preposterous. Do you really think that scientists are so utterly brain-dead as to tell themselves, "Gosh-darn, Gallo's work is compromised. We'll just keep on using his results!"
Are you really suggesting that?
It just goes to show, a lie can travel around the world before the truth can lace its shoes.
I appreciate that you still maintain a scientific learning curve, in contra-distinction to those who may have sold their
lawyerlyreasonings to the nearest piece of crap media references that can be dragged in front of an obscure internet jury.Maybe, but then again, I'm right ain't I?
Have fun! Feel better!
Please explain. Just in the interest of science, mind ye.
Technically this is true of course, so it is perfectly OK to say.
You have been convicted of fornicating with sheep L' - L * Sqrt(1 - (v**2/c**2)) times, where L is the length of an object in its own frame of reference, L' is its length as measured by an observer moving at a relative velocity of v, and c is the speed of light.
So what's the point of making obscure statements?
Sometimes when you do stand alone
It's cause you're really wise,
And sometimes when you stand alone
It's cause no wit complies,
Oh, when I'm blind I really like
To think that I am wise,
And when I'm wise I always
Know that I can be surprised,
And when I think I'm really smart,
Sophisticated, shrewd,
I sometimes think that other
Fella hasn't got a clue,
And so I like to throw in with the
Folks who know a lot,
Or at least they say
That that's the way
They rise above the rot,
And sometimes they may even know
Just what they're talking 'bout
Or maybe they just sound that way
Cause always rarely doubts,
You turn a word, or risk a phrase
That sounds like kinda true
Then dress it up with buttercups
And see what it accrues,
Call logic by comparison
To see how that stacks out
One thing into another please
To give it extra clout,
But if you ask me what I think
I haven't got a clue,
Yet then again I am just me
And you just maybe you,
But who can say that is the case
Upon the internet
For people can say what they like
And someone will abet,
So say just what you think you will
And let the good sense flow
Or say again the opposite
And stand by what you know,
For every argument's a kind
Of saying something else
It rarely matters if it's true
Come heaven, earth, or hell,
The important thing is that it's said
Upon the internet -
A billion years the earth will turn
But comments never set,
So if you've logic to excuse
Or even to abuse,
Just pick a post
To give your most
And stick it in the noose -
Then hang it high and let it fly
For everyone to see,
And in that way
You'll get your say,
Opinions still are free...
(As to whether they're right or not,
that's another story, and I'm stickin to it.)
You're skipping just a couple important factors in this discussion,
1. hiv is profoundly significant for those that
are hiv +.
2. those that have AIDS related illness do in fact
have profoundly significant and serious medical
problems.
3. Barnes, perhaps to gain a few internet points,
would shovel all facts off to,
"... with allegations leveled at Dr. Gallo, his
associates, rivals and enemies, that include
deception, misconduct, incompetence, fraud,
sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing,
overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a
clandestine affair with a co-worker, a bribery
attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and
serial rewritings of history. "
4. only a committment to genuine medical and
scientific data will resolve the issues
regardless of the ego-bending self-serving
horse crap comments emanating from this
discussion.
5. the internet isn't prepared to or ever will be
prepared to address those issues but it will
do a good job cherry-picking a news/media
article from 2003 that remotely suggests that
all hiv researchers and all hiv research is
bad news, so lets all swallow the cool-aid now
and bash those bastards.
I ain't likely ignoring nothing. Least ways, I hope not. It certainly wasn't my intention to not account for everything. But then again everything is a pretty big fella, so you may be right. Anything is possible, and some probably even are.
So, if you think I'm attacking your position, and the other fella thinks I'm attacking his, then I'm probably doing my job. But if you think I'm supporting your position, and he thinks I'm supporting his, then that might be true too. And if you think I'm supporting his position and he thinks I'm supporting yours then it's possible you both are right. Then again, maybe not.
As for me I got my own opinions on the matter, but then again, that's just me, and so that's not for me to say.
The important thing on the internet though is that everybody gets their shot, regardless of what target they're shooting at.
Or even whether they can shoot.
Or there is a target.
But if everybody just keeps shooting then I reckon sooner or later somebody will hit something. If we all get lucky enough.
See ya later.
Probably each other.
Am I correct in inferring from the sarcastic responses the some of our writers have exhausted their supply of rational arguments?
Generally speaking, inferring that your opponents are irrational is a rational argument. It's also a bad one. May I suggest that you leave sarcasm alone. Politeness with sarcasm is hard enough.
For many people sarcam is a signal that they are tired or angry, and it is their patience that is exhausted. You are a latecomer, Chris, and people tire of repeating themselves.
Yours,
Wince
And there you go.
Problem solved.
to readership appeasement.
Chris, you sure don't need to apologize to McK.
Or as General Colin Powell once said,
"Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off".
I don't feel bad about apologizing. Once I got over my snit, I realized that I was wrong. When you're wrong, you should WANT to apologize.
Very noble, Sir. Although the apology wasn't directed at me, I suspect I was one of the sources causing the snit.
Henceforth, I will seek to elevate our exchanges and treat you as the gentleman you are. Would love to have a civil discussion on AIDS, anytime.
The main problem, though, is groupthink and scientific herd mentality. In today's Wall St. Journal, there's a nice piece on global warming. Here's a good, general quote:
"Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?
It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe."
I posit that this phenomenom seen in the global warming debate has been happing with AIDS for over 26 years now.
Cheers to you, Mr. Crawford, for elevating the discussion.
Hank B
Not quite ready to go there, Hank. You could be biased or a liar.
But it is kind and noble of you to congratulate Mr. Crawford for apologizing and aligning yourself to his purported raising of the discussion.
But you, Hank, have offered neither an apology nor an explanation for some serious discrepancies regarding honesty in your own initial commentary on Dean's World from the very, very beginning of hiv/AIDS discussions, quote,
"Myself, don't know nuthin' about no insurgency this or that ---just a simple farm boy, devoted to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the face of shifting medical/scientific fad ! "
As always,
Hank
1.10.2005
then,
Yourself, also, know as David Steele, attorney, were the recipient one month later of the:
Superior Aids Rethinking Action Award as administrator for the year 2004 awarded 2/27/2005.
Curiously, you never informed Deans World readership of that noteworthy award.
So, tell us, Hank, why should we believe you ?
And do tell us more about fudging data, Hank ?
And while I'm feeling so warm and cuddly, I'd like to declare my appreciation for the commentators on this blog in general. With a few exasperating exceptions, the writers here have done a good job of winkling out the soft spots in my thinking. I have already learned more here than I have learned on most (not quite all) blogs that I have read. I hope that I've been of some utility to you.
Now, on to the discussion!
I'd like to comment on the 'herd mentality' point. First, having known a lot of scientists, I can testify in great detail about their many human weaknesses. Indeed, I think that my testimony on such human weaknesses would in many ways be vociferous. I think it sound policy to never put faith in any individual scientist.
But there's a huge difference between the individual scientist and the social system under which science operates. In this system, the golden ring that everybody is chasing is peer recognition, which in turn is obtained by publishing papers that everybody else cites in their own papers. Now, think about what this means. If you as Aspiring Young Scientist go along with the herd mentality, then you'll end up publishing "Me Too" papers that merely parrot what other scientists have already written. Who's gonna cite a Me Too paper? If the paper merely restates what everybody else believes in, then it's a nothingburger paper, one that nobody even bothers to read, much less cites. This is not how an eager beaver gets the gold.
The way to get the gold is to publish a paper that surprises people, a paper that turns the world upside down, a paper that contradicts all the received wisdom. Boy, THAT paper will get you noticed! And a zillion people will cite it. That's the way you get promoted to full professor, obtain those research grants, or get scientific prizes. You want to be perverse, contradictory, the odd man out, the weirdo with the strange ideas. That's the only way to get ahead in the scientific world -- which is why so many scientists are weirdos with strange ideas.
Ah, but there is the little matter of being wrong. If you submit a paper for publication that's weird AND stupid, it will never get published, you don't get the gold, nubile nymphs won't scream in delight upon your entering the room, etc, etc. So you have to come up with an idea that's both contradictory AND right. That's rather difficult, because all the previous papers on the subject were also contradictory and right. That's why it's so difficult to get ahead in the world of science. It's a ferocious meritocracy, but it really works. There is no way that a turkey can be elevated to high position because of his father's connections. A female turkey can't sleep her way to the top. There's just one way: merit. And the same thing goes for scientific ideas. There are all sorts of urban myths about scientists getting it wrong. If you examine those urban myths, they always boil down to a few basic types:
1. The scientist was right, but a news reporter hyped it up into something completely different, which in turn proves to be wrong, and then the public blames the scientist. "A Study of Sexual Behavior in Brazilian Spotted Terns" becomes "Pervert Birds Invade Brazil!!!"
2. The scientist publishes new data that revise previous estimates of something. The urban myth says that he disproved everything that came before. Special relativity did not prove that Newtonian mechanics was false; it showed that at high relative velocities, a new term had to be introduced into the equations of motion.
3. Related to this is the urban myth that, because one scientist publishes something that does contradict previous thinking, scientists must not be able to tell truth from a hole in the ground, and so we shouldn't trust them on anything. The mistake here is the belief that Truth is simple, absolute thing that you either know or don't know. That's not right. Instead, Truth is a hugely complicated thing, and as we dig deeper and deeper, and learn more, we come to realize that previous thinking was in some way mistaken and we need to adjust our thinking. But that doesn't mean that we exhume Newton's remains and toss them in the garbage, burn all of Einstein's books, and declare the entire scientific heritage to be bull. We acknowledge that we need an adjustment, and we move on. Owning up to error and correcting it is NOT a justification for condemning somebody wholesale.
To conclude: scientists have developed a social system that has proven to be remarkably effective at motivating scientists to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It catches cheats, promotes meritorious ideas, and guards against the human foibles that so contaminate thinking in so many areas of human endeavor. Scientists themselves are far from perfect. The scientific system produces vastly more reliable results than could be had from individual scientists. It's still not perfect, but the criticisms I hear of it from non-scientists are usually based on urban myths.
It was rather interesting that you used the term uncomfortable. Sometimes, the comfort zone is the only place where unpleasantries have an opportunity to nudge others from their protracted echo chambers. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work.
In any event, Alexander Fleming would most likely agree with the bulk of your comment above.
The end result is that the blogosphere seems to be fostering the increasing partisanship that is paralyzing our body politic. I fear that this partisanship is causing our political machinery to grind to a halt -- a development that bodes ill for the continued survival of democracy in America.
Well-spoken!
The mistake here is the belief that Truth is simple, absolute thing that you either know or don't know. That's not right. Instead, Truth is a hugely complicated thing, and as we dig deeper and deeper, and learn more, we come to realize that previous thinking was in some way mistaken and we need to adjust our thinking.
Totally true. I have a heluva story to tell you about this court case I was involved in a couple of years ago with a buncha AIDS true-believers. I dug pretty deep!
But that doesn't mean that we exhume Newton's remains and toss them in the garbage, burn all of Einstein's books, and declare the entire scientific heritage to be bull.
That's also true, but a little bit of a strawman.
Most scientists are honorable, writing honest publications, falsifying their hypotheses, doing good work, trying to grants, trying to get published, trying to get tenure.
I submit, however, that when gov't control and money take over a scientific endeavor, it gets distorted beyond recognition. That's what has happened with AIDS -- that's what is still happening today.
Email Dean -- he has my address, we can discuss it anytime.
HankB
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.