shh!!!! its more fun. if you appreciate long term trading with the right partner it can be almost tantric in a sense. we've already been blessed with the gift of life; let the shorts get grey hair and precum and be divorced by their spous!
cheers - long island NY for a drink
How would the shorts feel if 50% of people with herpes were able to CLEAR the viral load. i saw someone commenting on grade school science. Virus's don't get cleared, they just stay in lysergic non-active cycle; that is until they get 30+ yrs of advanced electroporation mixed with decades of advancing DNA therapy.
I'm surprised you even listen... thats quite interesting. tongue in cheek for you at some point here buddy
and whose been sitting in the chair the whole time making those moves? because the company being traded RIGHT NOW, TODAY, started in june 2009. thats it end of conversation unless you provide a material tangible connection between those old companies and the current INO other than scam stock certificates. this is a company that started in june 2009
how can i trust you when you are not even in punta cana, puta
what would a 47% decrease in annualized MS relapse rate at 12 months p=.03
32% decrease at 24 months p= .15 mean to any of our science guys here? these are the numbers they will release tomorrow morning?
exactly 52% was not the primary endpoint. the primary endpoint was statsig histological regression which they achieved. 52% was a prediction based on phase 1 results look at the scatter plot charts for more info on that. it could just as easily have be 54.5% vs 49.5% its how bell curves work. u sound like a moron in a lot of your posts.
guys.... i was just as excited when i read it the first time, it is truly a breakthrough. but it should be apparent that fibonacci is just commenting on the secondary endpoint.. 81% of responders had virological clearance from the cervix. i already commented the other day how if the secondary endpoint had been the primary endpoint everyone would be going "bananas"... the difference in endpoint 1 or 2 is superficial. 81% of responders still had "complete response"
The secondary endpoint of the p2 was, not-technically speaking, "harder to achieve."virological clearance- am i right?
They very well could have made THAT the primary endpoint but did not(because its harder to achieve) and everyone would have been "going bananas." .... am i right?
now think of virologic clearance of HIV not histologic.... now answer my question