My point is that the article states:

"The committee determined that the study appeared capable of reaching a statistically significant endpoint within its 144 patient sample size and voted for the study to continue until its next scheduled evaluation in four weeks."

It then goes on to state:

"Based upon the companies' July 16 release, the DMC will evaluate the patient data in the Phase II/III Critical patient study again "in four weeks," which puts the next possible data release on about August 13, Thursday of this week."

Where in the first quote can anyone infer that the data will be released at the same time the data is ready to be reviewed? The study will continue for 4 weeks (til August 13) "until the next scheduled evaluation...

Are we to infer that the study continues for 4 weeks and the data will be ready to be released the same day the study stops? Of course not. It will likely take weeks before the data can be released.

I'm just being logical. I could be way off, but a very big leap of logic is being made by the author of that article

Yes... I have some of it too but I just don't see where anyone gets that info will be released by the 13th. The data first needs to be reviewed and analyzed
Before anyone puts out a public release (no?)

Where does it say they will be releasing info on Thursday?

That just makes no sense. They have to analyze the data before they report on it. How does anyone actually think they'll release results of this as soon as the 13th? I wish they would but wth?

I agree

I’m behind you, but the MMQ’ing certainly weakens the argument. The lawyers are held to a higher standard but I doubt anyone, lawyer or otherwise, could have anticipated her actual errors. The lawyers expected her to do her job, but gross negligence or incompetence could not have been anticipated. After the verdict, all the liberal haters started blaming the extreme left POV because of where the court is located or where she went to school? BS

My uncle died from Covid 19. Was he a snowflake for wearing a mask when around others and was he a snowflake when he avoided people not wearing masks?
I have nothing but contempt for those of you who think this whole thing is a bunch of lies and political meandering. Please have a massive non-masker convention, ASAP.

No such thing as clear and overwhelming. It’s simply clear and convincing

That’s monday morning quarterbacking, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, you’re right. But not a peep about this fact was heard before the judgment.

Dont be an a-hole. Im not a doctor. I dont know, thats why I asked

How would V compare to Dexamethosone, which can be injected and go to work almost immediately?

I accept that with a single caveat: I believe the appeal court would be within the bounds of play to defer to the judge's (DU) subjective reasons for going 100 MPH absent a specific edict not to go 100.

If the case law dictates that the secondary conditions be considered in addition to, and not as proof/evidence the primary conditions are legitimate, as we saw in the trial, then it should be overturned/remanded

Excellent response except that I would posit that the lack of case law contraindicating weighing the SC's against each other allows the judge to use her own judgment and to be subjective in weighing them against each other. It is entirely possible that she had reason to be driving 100 mph on a wet highway, and we are not (necessarily) entitled to those reasons because the case law did not require her to abstain from comparing.

I'm not defending her. She blew it, plain and simple.

Eight, I think your #3 is a misnomer. Is there case law stating how SCs are to be treated? If no, then the question is moot. If yes, then the question has no significance since Singer would be tasked with making it clear the decision should be overturned on the grounds the court made a decision contrary to well established case law

Thanks BB

The fda and uspto are not the same departments. What anyone does in their fda app is separate and irrelevant w/r to the uspto unless there is a statutory exception. Can you lead me to any such exception? I challenge you respectfully....

That’s factually incorrect. The label is not drafted by the USPTO. Unless during the patent app process any (person) objects to the patent, then they are forever barred from such a defense (anda preceding patent application) in the event of a lawsuit for infringement

The judges will render their decisions after hearing oral arguments, or without hearing them (based only on what is in the briefs).

How is that relevant? A patent does not have carveouts for anda’s, whether it’s in the OB or not... please splain your statement

Incompetence?

Grate kwoat

intellect is often inversely proportionate with stupidity. Einstein was brilliant on many things but likely would never have been able to change a tire. The idiot savant is a good example of this. But, your run of the mill bad speller seems to be plainly stupid

Though he was German, which would explain his poor spelling in English, he was also purportedly a bad speller in German! That’s hard to understant. Many other brilliant people were that way.

That’s not a product of the education system any more than some idiot not knowing how to drive is a failure of the transportation system. Some people are plainly stupid and there is no fix for stupid.

What makes you say we had to pay their legal bill?

Thank you

You may very well be right

Read it. It’s full of grammatical mistakes and sounds like a kid is describing the thing

Why does that read like a 10th grade science paper?. Im calling BS

My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.

I have loads of expletives to direct at you for lumping me into your basket of deplorable libs. Im not a liberal, a democrat, right wingnut or republican. I’m someone who actually thonks about what’s happening and applies right and wrong to the situation and them make my judgment. You right wingnuts simply can’t separate right from wrong, as you are blinded by your favoritism of a racist, lying sack of avoided expletives.

I dont support socialism at all. I suppose you’re not even referring to all yhe breaks your admin has given big business... well because you dont see that as socialism. You only believe socialism means welfare and soup kitchens and food stamps and free education. You are blind.

Judge du simply failed to grasp the facts as they were presented to her and her judgment reflected that. It’s not about her being Vietnamese or what’s happened in Vietnam over the decades, or socialism or Obamacare or liberalism or any of this crap that everybody keep spouting out. She simply sucks as a judge, and was Undoubtedly deeply affected by the death of her son right in the middle of the trial. All this other crap you guys keep making up is a figment of your own partisan politics. Not mine.

I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. Why don’t we just drop it

Funny thing is, I didn’t give an opinion. I just gave facts. Something your camp doesn’t seem capable of dealing with

Lol

It’s just kind of silly that anybody would post something like the original message to this threaf. It’s ridiculous.

I don’t want to belabor the point, but I can’t even count the number of times that I saw, watched, heard references to how many people were wearing masks and how many were not, and how dangerous the protests were for spreading of the virus.. I don’t know how any of you didn’t see any of that. It was everywhere

Fear of the protests spreading Covid19 were splattered ALL OVER the news since the day they started

Exactly :/

Exactly :/