I like the new ignore feature as you can see the idiots that you put on ignore have posted, but can't see what they say. It just adds to the enjoyment.
As a scientist, you live for lively and spirited debate. However, this shortnstocks clowns is the antithesis of that kind of valuable exchange. He posts lies and misrepresentations, but when he is exposed as being wrong using specific examples, yet he refuses to simply acknowledge his obvious errors and correct them, as any intelligent person with integrity and honor would do. Rather, the little guy engages in obfuscation by raising other issues that are not relevant to the issues at hand. He also stoops to hurling blanket accusations without any specifics, them mark of a classless weasel and pretender. For example, the little guy said I made many errors in my posts, but as expected for his ilk, he didn't cite any of my comments. The truth is that everything I posted in my exchanges with him were factually accurate.
The old adage, never argue with a fool, as they only drag you down to their level then beat you with experience fits with this shortenstocks guy. That is why I put him on ignore. We can talk about the science and trial data honestly now.
Based on that tirade I guess I really did hurt his feeling. Seriously though please read through the series of posts from vin and myself and judge for yourself rather than being sheep to this poser. I find it fun to engage in fools that feel it necessary to put a "dr" in from of there yahoo IDs. It speaks volumes about there insecurity and need for attention. Let my posts speak for themselves and decide for yourself if I am an expert in the field.
"I attended the oral presentation at Chicago today. There were I'd estimate 500 in audience. The general impression from the audience and the discussant were positive and they used words like "exciting data" etc. e only concern from the discussant was the the incorporation of 6 months since metastatic disease. She felt that there is not a clear scientific basis for this. The TTNL data for the exploratory analysis was very impressive. The KRas correlative is trending to favor D+G arm but currently is not significant. The jury is still out on this. She also concluded the phase III design is appropriate and will incorporate some of the same stratification.
So bottom line is that data looks very good and I firmly believe the market over reacted here."
Your June 6th post:
"I'm not short but I am a research scientist and have studied and published on HSP90 for the last 10 years. I can say with some confidence that the inhibitors currently being investigated are doomed for failure for the following reasons. 1) all N-terminal hsp90 inhibitors induces a heat shock response via release of HSF-1. This results in the robust induction of cytostatic cell survival proteins such as Hsp70 and Hsp27. Obviously induction of cytostatic cell protection mechanism is counterproductive even when paired with cytotoxic chemo 2) All N-terminal inhibitors hit both isoforms of Hsp90 (alpha and beta). Only the alpha isoforms is productive resulting in a large amount of inhibitor binding unproductively to the begat isoforms and finally 3) hsp90 is too abundant too make it a realistic target; hsp90 is present at about 2% in total weight of cellular protein."
Seems like the two post contradict. One hand very positive, then 3rd days later drug is doomed to fail.