Biotech Values

[JohnWayne]

If Tefferi's intent was to cover things up and to present non-CR's as if they were CR's, then he loses all credibility in my book.

Not trying to gang up here, but I think this sentence captures the mistake you're making.

Those of us who interpret the abstract as saying that the reported "CRs" are NOT complete aren't suggesting that Tefferi is trying to cover things up. Quite the opposite - we see the abstract as very clearly outlining that 4 patients "met the BM and peripheral blood morphologic criteria for CR". For the reasons outlined by biomaven, the subsequent reference to "the four CR patients" reads as a shorthand reference to the patients who met the BM and PBM criteria for CR, not as introducing new information about the patients (i.e., that they were actually complete CRs).

To this point, there isn't some dichotomy between either the patients were complete CRs or Tefferi is a fraudulent deceiver. The abstract does not suggest that the patients are complete CRs. The abstract does specifically call out the criteria of CR that the patients met; if the patients were complete CRs, it is only reasonable to expect them to call out the IWG criteria. It's true that we can't rule out 100% that the abstract was poorly worded and that the patients actually were complete CRs until we see the presentation, but I think given what's in the abstract, claiming that the patients were complete CRs is an entirely unreasonable interpretation.

Also, I notice that those who think the abstract suggests complete CRs haven't responded to #msg-93846970. No comments on that?