Master of minutia, lol. No one holds a candle to you in that department.
So let me get this straight. In the year 2000 they started the project. They discovered the marker somewhere between 2000 and 2004, when they filed the patent. THEN they decided to validate it and see if it was real, is that your premise? They patented stuff before they knew it was valid? Hmmm, interesting concept. Will that have any effect on their other patents? You know the ones that have not yet been validated or won't validate?
Moving on, even though the effectivness of the marker, as demonstrated in the (validated) PR is remarkably less than the 98% effectivity listed in the patent, you contend that they are the same. In which case.....(drum roll).......this PR is very old news. Why did it come out now? Why did it (apparently) coincide with a large volume event in which a considerable number of new shares were sold to the public? Are you suggesting that the company has taken some 'years old' information out of the files, dusted it off and turned it into fodder for market manipulation? Isn't that illegal?
Darn it. I would hope that the company would be more straightforward.
No, I'm sorry, you are wrong.
This is a new discovery, there is, or will be,a new patent. (The PR is ambiguous on whether the patent has been filed or is about to be filed). The marker is just what they say. Something that is in 15 to 25% of the entire population, provides a 2.5 times greater susceptibility to myalgia, but does not accurately predict whether a patient will suffer the muscle pain when taking a statin. It is a valuable addition to the science but it is NOT a 'statnome' type of classifier.
As to your charge (from our previous discussion)that I have taken the 'core' discussion out of context,(a serious issue and one I am constantly battling myself)let me provide your entire first post on the subject to eliminate any such concern.
You claimed that a CNV cannot be identified without using SNPs. I challenged that claim.
Her is your post, (including insults, I don't want to be accused of editing out anything contextual. lol)
bag8ger...Why on earth do you assume that Frog knows anything about SNPs or CNVs. SNPs are essential elements to any research, and will continue to be. You CAN'T identify CNVs without SNPs. The latest research is additive to our knowledge base, it doesn't replace or erase the significance of SNPs. Geez...
Later,
W2P
Let's look at it shall we.
SNPs are essential elements to any research, and will continue to be.
To any research? Any research not associated with non-taggable CNVs perhaps?
You CAN'T identify CNVs without SNPs.
Well.....yes you can.
And finally...the strawman.
The latest research is additive to our knowledge base,..
Of course it is, no one gives up (or forgets) research.
..it doesn't replace or erase the significance of SNPs. Geez...
Which of course....no one was suggesting.
So in the entire post, what have I taken out of context?
Did you not mean that no kind of research can be conducted without SNPs?
Do you still think that CNV's cannot be identified without SNPs?
A brief review of everything I have said in response to that post will show that my challenge to your post was specific and direct. You cannot have missed the subject of the discussion if you read them and you could not have missed them since your subsequent responses were 'replies' to them.
Want to start again? Or are you about to fade away again?
regards,
frog
