I recently read that oral arguments carry little weight in swaying appeal decisions. As I recall the number was only 7%. The case will be decided primarily on the facts and the law. Oral arguments serve mostly to reinforce the relevant points already being considered by the court.
Exercise increases left atrial and ventricle chamber size and wall thickness but the ejection fraction remains pretty constant. EF is reduced in heart failure due to flaccidity. You can make your stroke volume bigger with exercise but it comes mostly from filling it fuller, not emptying it more completely. I would concede that there is some synergy, but EF is a measurement that should factor out the effects of training because it is a ratio.
former respiratory therapist; worked in tertiary care teaching hospital trauma unit. I'll give it a read. I just took a trade and am watching. Also back in TTPH under 10.
Someone who chooses not to work because 7.50 isn't enough will never land a job at 20.
I'm just saying we should look at hundreds, not dozens before drawing strong conclusions. I've witnessed medical miracles so I'm not ready to discount the possibility that things happen we don't understand yet. Isn't this boy nine and still running per the video? I don't think much is known about how someone would respond to early treatment.
you are contradicting yourself. While absolute spending on infrastructure has increased steadily over the decades ( and I don't consider education infrastructure), as a ratio to gdp it has gone down. Meanwhile non-discretionary spending has skyrocketed. Wars are only possible where the government can monetize debt. I didn't say redistribution of wealth makes people lazy. They either are or aren't. But they are smart enough to know whether working is worth the effort. When they think working is a fools errand because they have enough comfort and things without busting their hump, they simply don't. Look at the labor participation rate. One lens says there's a lack of opportunity. Another says there's a lack of ambition. Drink the cool aid if you choose.
There is no money. What we conceptualize as money supply is really the magnitude of indebtedness that has been monetized by the fractional reserve banking system embodied in the federal reserve. The problem is that folks who believe in the keynesian economic model think that debt can expand infinitely and that economic growth will exceed the rate of inflation of currency due to the stimulating effect of low interest rates. But anybody that analyzes the models comes to realize that the stimulus created by lowering interest rates is transient. The economy reaches equilibrium in a matter of years, becoming dependent on low interest rates. In recent years debt has skyrocketed, and thus the money supply and yet there has been only modest economic growth and arguably even deflation in the cost of goods and services. The real problem that nobody wants to admit is that taxation exerts a drag on economic growth, and the benefits doled out by the government via taxation and redistribution of wealth dampen the desire to create wealth by working harder. We have seen this manifest recently by declining productivity. Also what we see as deflation is largely an artifact resulting from the fact that fiat currency is still related to the hard currency of oil.
I should add that while dystrophin production did not seem to appear in trial subjects before 24 weeks, It did not exclude the possibility that some would respond earlier.
This reflects back on n=10. There well may be a large variability in the response.Response at 24 weeks was observed in a very narrow age range in which rapid deterioration was expected. Theoretically improvement should only be seen when satellite cells see functional dystrophin during maturation into myocytes. Otherwise we should just see stabilization. But do we know enough about new muscle generation to make strong inferences? I think there is more to be learned about the phenotype of truncated,but functional dystrophin.
If the UTI p3 would have been successful It would have made the drug a "gotta have it now". Since it failed it needs to follow a more tortuous path to prove that it is as effective as other drugs and that since it has a different mechanism of action, it will address situations where other drugs fail due to resistance. More importantly, as a platform, it has the potential to generate dozens of similar drugs that thwart resistance.
First it has to be at least as effective as standard of care drugs.
Second it has to be effective against resistant strains.
These are the questions the phase 3 trials address.
The most recent trial was an attempt to address urinary tract infections. These are inevitable whenever somebody needs to have an indwelling (foley) catheter for any length of time. The problem is that the catheter introduces bacteria normally present on skin without causing disease into the urinary tract which does not present the same barriers to infection that intact skin does. The problem is that there are dozens of strains of bacteria that commonly cause UTI. It is not reasonable to expect that one antibiotic will treat anything that happens to infect the urinary tract. All this failed study shows is that evracycline is not a "magic bullet".
A good conservative move, IMO. Did this with CEMP. Once the sp moved substantially above the calls I added more stock. It works especially well when implied volatility is high due to recent big swings. Good to have you on the board. It has been crickets here for years.
I don't. If there was a dosing issue it should have been revealed earlier. I think it is more fundamental, e.g. the study design ,esp the inclusion criteria. But without anything to go on, it's just speculation.
The pills would be to make sure any organisms that weren't treated by the IV phase don't re-establish. Typically this is due to incomplete tissue saturation. Also to establish the pharmacokinetics of IV vs oral administration.