bailey. - Even for you this is disgusting. Other than rumor and wildaszs speculation your accusations are baseless. And libelous. I'm not going to continue a madhouse-level spat with you.
But I leave you with a caution: A California federal appeals court decision established that postings on the internet can constitute libel.
bailey. - That you post claims without solid evidence to back them is nothing new. But your accusation that the Clintons pocketed the Haitian relief money is based on nothing more than bitter partisan mudslinging. And you seem to forget it was the GWBush/Clinton relief fund.
Bill& Hillary may not be saints but they're lawyers and they're not ignorant. Absconding with the Relief fund money would be idiotic.
rmd - I've told you this dozens of times. You're wasting your time trying to drag me into a political exchange with an ideologue with tunnel vision. That said.....
The loud mouthed hair apparent is proving two things which the media can't seem to grasp. One, (like I been telling you) illegal immigration is the country's biggest problem simply because there's so much of it.
Two, the ship of fools who comprise the mob of candidates are a "none of the above" group that nobody wants and so almost anybody is preferable.
There are only two of them who believe in anything; Bernie Sanders who's socialist agenda includes free college for anyone who can fog a mirror. And Rand Paul who is wants everything that exists to be disbanded because anarchy is bliss. The rest would sell their mother if the polls leaned that way.
This country is in trouble. I need a stiff drink.
rmd - Firing blanks as usual. You could spend years trying to find the " last time I defended (Hillary)". But you won't because you know you made that up. A word of caution tho...if you persist in generating the OT (non reo) rants, kenny may start slapping you around with his witty, sardonic metaphors.
rmd - Not wanting to seem pedantic but "spaying" is the removal of FEMALE reproductive organs. Unless, of course, there's a (in)side of you we knew nothing about.
speedy - I did all my hunting years ago, far from the Hamptons. I understand defensive hunting of life threatening predators. What you choose to ignore is in his 13 years this animal had caused no harm to humans. He was not a human predator.
The predator here was the dentist. Who travelled halfway around the world for the thrill of killing an animal who was no threat to him nor anyone he knew. He didn't "hunt" the lion. He had it illegally lured from the safety of its home and family and brought to him to slaughter. That you can't see the difference between what went down in Zimbabwe and ethical hunting is really disappointing.
speed - your leap to discredit those of us who decry the underhanded way a non threatening lion was slaughtered is baseless. Because you (&lowball) assume incorrectly that those who care about the lion do not care about the senseless slaughter and abuse of humans. People who rale against senseless cruelty don't limit it to a single animal.
If OTOH your empathy for lowball is really coming from your own personal fondness for killing elephants and lions and other big game as the proper way to feed macho egos, it would make more sense to present it that way than to demean others for feelings or a lack of feelings you have absolutely no idea they harbor.
testicle. - You're about 2/3 sick and completely obnoxious. I join the many who have you on ignore.
I'm also beginning to wonder why we hear nothing - not even a progress report - about the German reimbursement negotiations. Last year I thought we would hear by end of Q1. I know it involves many parties but many months have passed.
testy - It would be hard to formulate an argument more fatuous and nonsensical than the "neon signs" and territorial confused lion construct you cobbled together. But since there must be intellectually superior discourse in loftier venues you would be foolish to waste more of your time here. And our time as well.
bailey. - Well I knew it couldn't last. U,me&armed agreeing on something. I concur on Palmer. I think the Brady business is not even in the same league and the PC do-gooders feasting on it are way, way out of line. There is NO hard evidence that Brady is guilty as charged. Even his prosecutors say that. There no doubt some truth to the charges but no evidence that it affected the outcome nor the final score of the game. Everybody wants to tear TB & team down mostly because the are blindly envious of their record.
So the mob calls for revenge. And - once again WITHOUT HARD EVIDENCE - they punish not just Brady but the whole team, the team's owner, the city of Boston and all the patriot fans. The revenge of the bitterly envious run amok. Did the French revolution teach us anything?
testy - your defense of Palmer argument is petty and warped. This repulsive episode was innocent because there were no "neon signs" defining park borders and the lion didn't know enough to stay in the national park??? The"guides and professional hunter" who lured the lion out of the park absolutely knew where. The park borders were. That's why they dragged the bait so far to get him out of the park.
And your inane suggestion that the territorial clueless lion would have wandered out on his own is rendered groundless by the Thirteen Years that he had lived there and not done it. Go back to kneeling before your shrine to Cheney and hugging your arms.
testy - I was a hunter for many years. I'm not categorically opposed to hunting in the wild when the game has an even chance or better than even chance.
But going to a "game farm" where helpless animals & birds are released from captivity from behind blinds by farmhands to be immediately slaughtered in their first moments of freedom the way those two thugs Scalia and Cheney regularly did killing literally hundreds of birds in a day isn't hunting. It's bloodlust killing.
Palmer had to know his prey was being lured from the protected game park. He was hunting right next to it and he knew it was being lured there. The "guides" knew who the lion was. And they were standing on either side of him ready with loaded .375 bore guns to insure the lion could never reach him.
That isn't hunting that's slaughter. And it seems all too similar to his incident with the bear a year or two earlier.
bailey - Or trial had 0 CRs and 1PR out of 29 evaluable patients. 1/29 is an ORR of 3.4% no matter how you twist it. ESMO DID NOT state that CBR was a SUPERIOR standard of measurement. Merely an alternative measurement.
My assertion that odomzo had been previously approved in europe was 100% correct. I made no statement that it was significantly before US approval. You have to twist and change what I say to support your nonsense. I'm convinced you have a very tenuous grip on reality. Small wonder you spend your life in the anonymity of message boards.
It's impossible to have a rational exchange with someone who's unbalanced. I'm done with it.
I have been trying at baba's behest to ignore your foolishness. But it is just too delightfully ironic that you bungled into undermining your own specious argument when you posted that the FDA granted odomzo market approval based on THE ORR RESULTS OF THE PII TRIAL. ORR results not (as you insanely insist) are trumped by clinical benefit rate. It is exactly what I have been saying our ORR results (3.4%) were not equal to their approved 58% ORR results. Your assertion that clinical benefit rate is superior is laughable. As are you.
rmd. - If you have half the intelligence you claim to have you know what I posted has nothing to do with odomzo replacing reo. Or competing with reo for paitents. If you had half the ethics you purport it would annoy you also when someone pumping repeatedly uses as support a false comparison. We do ot have a better case than they had for approval. The CR numbers (5%) don't fit my zeal? We didn't have any. Their ORR data was impressive. To me and to the FDA. Argue with them.
I'm still in because I still think there's combo and indication where reo might be effective. And because, as I have said for many years, I have as much hope for effective therapy as for profit. You, as I remember, have always been in it for the money. I saw bailey's appeal to you for help on the other board. Your endorsement means zilch. Since you've already admitted that you side with him vs Fox even when you know he's dead wrong.
The one thing in your little hitpiece I agree with we have major international and domestic trouble coming our way and I don't see anyone or any group with a plan or program to deal with it. Certainly not the GOP legion de fous . Nor Hillary who is (I kid you not) emailing cobbler recipes to female voters nationwide.
bailey. - I don't know if you're being paid to do this or whether your dealing with an OCAd that can't be treated. But no matter how you choose to serve it up to anyone not willing to think for himself the facts are unavoidable.
1. Odomzo had beakthrough status. We don't.
2. Odomzo was already approved and on the market in europe. We aren't.
3. Odomzo had 3 CRs (complete disappearance of the tumor. We had none.
4. Odomzo had 35 PRs (30%.or more tunor shrinkage. We had one.
5. 58% of odomzo patients had significant measureable results. Only 3.4% of our did.
Your trying to disguise the above postulating the broad, all encompassing CBR rate is the equal of measured ORRs. It isn't. And all but one of our CBRs were SDs (up to 20% growth) There is no evidence I know that approval is granted based on SDs only from a very small trial.
bailey - Stop trying to twist the data to fit your agenda. The only way to make a fair comparison between Odimzo and Reo is to use the same metric for both trials. That is: Odomzo had 38 ORRs (3 complete, 35 partial). which gives them the 58% ORR figure. Reo had no (0) complete responses and only 1partial. Using the same odomzo criterion gives us a 1/29 or 3.4% (three point four) ORR. Your twisting and spinning the data does not change that.
And you might ask yourself why, if our results are so superior to theirs, hasn't Brad applied for breakthru status or approval based on them? On second thought you'd be the worst person to ask.
bailey - Odomzo vs Reo is not an apples to apples comparison. Odomzo had breakthrough status. ORRs are CRs where the tumor is completely gone + PRs where there is greater than a 30% reduction the longest tumor diameter (& therefore an even greater % ofthe volume). Suggesting that 85% SDs (where the tumor can grow as much as 20% to ORRs where the tumor must shrink 30%+ or disappear) means reo has shown equal or more efficacy is simply not valid.
I'm hoping the indication of our 1 and 2 year panc survival rates are borne out because they may be breakthru/approvable.