"On one side you have 97% of the world's climate scientists"
I think you could have stopped right there toast. It makes those that dont believe global warming exists realize that they are deciding to go against 97% of the EXPERTS.
It would be like oil/gas engineers being 97% confident that there is a large oil reserve in the gulf of mexico, and someone who knows nothing about oil/gas extractions saying....."uh-uh....there is no oil there".
Jack.....so you think climate scientists are a whole arent to be trusted because 1 or 2 fudged data??? Out of thousands of credible scientists??? ok....lets go with that.
So, what do you think about the other members of the National Academy of Sciences that also think global warming exists and is caused by man? (see below for a small percentage of the members). What do you think of The Pentagon, who also not only said global warming exists, but is more a threat to national security than terrorism? You just dont believe them? Why would they "fudge data"?
American Chemical Society
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Statistical Association
Geological Society of America
American Medical Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
And there are 220 international organizations as well. You are saying that all of them are fraudulent? Cmon now Jack.
Again, if an oil/gas company (you know....the EXPERTS?) said there is a 97% likelihood that oil exists in a section of the Gulf of Mexico, it would be like somenone who knows nothing about oil/gas saying....."nope. There is no gas, because someone from Haliburton and BP fudged data relating to the oil spill i the Gulf". You see how ignorant that sounds?
Engineers do 2D and 3D analysis, geologic surveys, etc., and then assigning probabilities BEFORE drilling.
WOW. You should really just not say anything when you dont know anything about the subject.
Over MY head??? LMFAO!!!!
The comparison is a good one, b/c I STOPPED before the drilling. YOU were the one that brought up the drilling.
Again, for the learning impaired (fredin212). A team of engineers performs 2D and 3D seismic and geologic surveys in the gulf of mexico. Based on those DATA, they come up with a 97% probability that oil exists.
A team a climate scientists looks at temperature, climate, atmospheric, ice core (etc., etc., etc.,) DATA and come up with a probability that global warming exists and is caused by man.
Along comes an idiot who knows NOTHING about oil/gas exploration. And says "you are wrong, there is no oil there". Why do you say that says the EXPERTS? "Because 1 guy in an oil/gas company committed fraud".
Along comes another idiot who knows NOTHING about global warming. He says "97% of the climate scientists are wrong". Why do you say that says mulletman99? "Because 1 climate scientist committed fraud".
I spelled it out for you as clearly as if I was talking to a 5 year old. If you dont get it now........well, you wont.
This is exactly why I stopped posting here. Arguing with conservitards is like arguing with a 5 year old.
So basically you are saying, that you are smarter than 97% of the experts, even though you havent looked at the data they have.
For the sake of our kids......I hope you didnt teach science Jack.
Jack.....that doesnt change the FACT that you are going against the opinion of 97% OF EXPERTS, and over 85% OF ALL SCIENTISTS.
In other words, you think you are smarter than 97% of climate scientists, The Pentagon, NASA, NOAA, The US Chemical Society, etc., etc., etc., etc.,......even though you HAVE NOT LOOKED AT ALL of the data they have. And IM 100% CERTAIN, you havent read all of the peer-reviewed (key words) scientific journals related to the data.
They form their opinion from EXTENSIVE analysis of tons and tons of data.....ALL of the data. And then you decide by looking at some websites that fit your pre-determined opinion, that 97% of the EXPERTS are wrong?????
Think about it for a minute Jack.
Being in the minority is not an issue.
However, you are choosing to be in the minority of a SCIENCE issue based on POLITICAL views. Those 2 realms should be mutually exclusive.
You are choosing to be in the minority by going against 97% of the EXPERTS in an area you dont have the background in to fully understand.
THAT is the issue.
Jack.....Im sure you agree that political afiliation should have NOTHING to do with any sceince related topic. Yet.....here are the poll numbers:
Those who think global warming EXISTS (note....not even caused by man, but EXISTS!!!!!):
- Democrats - 88%
- Independents - 62%
- Republicans - 61%
- Tea Baggers - 25%
Now.....ask yourself why this is, and you might just answer the question of why you are going against 97% of the EXPERTS.
contezta....talking his/her book.
Last week when you owned it this was the greatest stock in the world. Now that you got left behind, a basher.....LOL!
There is a connection between NAVB and FPMI. Platinum Partners ( $1Billion under mngmt) was the lead investor in the last raise. They are major investor with NAVB, and traded 1.23M fully tradeable NAVB shares for 4.5million preferred shares of FPMI. FPMI is selling NAVB shares when they need cash. Never seen anything like it. But....the lead investor in NAVB taking an interest in FPMI speaks volumes, IMO.
The OUTSTANDING shares are what matters right now, and 12mil vs 14mil??.....WHO CARES?! Either one is very low and gives us a market cap of 99-114mil.....VERY low considering the data that is about to be released.
Yes, people need to be aware of the authorized share count and make their own decision on the possibility of dilution.
In my opinion.....they already said they have enough cash to last through Q1 2015, and DEFINITELY enough to last through the results of the current phase2 for CKD, which will be out in March. The CEO owns a good chukc of the company as do the Baker Brothers (9.99%). Why would they dilute BEFORE the results.......unless the results arent good. I am betting that they DO NOT dilute before the results and we have a nice run-up into results in March.
As to the results themselves? We have evidence pointing to good results, but everyone needs to look at the phase 1 data, the continuation study and the Baker Brothers joining when they did and decided for themselves.
An RNAi or mRNA therapeutic company goes looking for a delivery company to partner with. They test them all in the lab. The company with the most experience and thus the most HUMAN safety data will be given the most weight.
When spending tens if not hundreds of millions on clinical trials would a company choose a delivery vehicle with hundreds of HUMAN clinical SAFETY data points or a delivery vehicle with lab data?
Don't underestimate Tekmira 's existing HUMAN SAFETY data.
Go to their website...front page. About half way down, click on corporate presentation. Slides 16 and 17 describe the preclinical work with LJPC-100 with NASH. Here is the summary:
"Statistically significant improvements in all efficacy measures including
histologic score, collagen deposition, and liver function"
Oh, I see. You are one of those people who troll message boards faking an attempt at discussion, when in reality you are just looking for a way for you to TRY (key word here) to make yourself look intelligent by putting down anything anyone says, good point or not.
I was wondering why noone would engage you. Now I know.