No, that's not what I said at all. There is nothing wrong with the abstract, and there is nothing wrong with IWG criteria. The abstract can't be any clearer by stating 4 CRs were for bone marrow and peripheral blood, period. It's you guys who somehow kept insisting what the abstract didn't say 4 CRs were for bone marrow, peripheral blood, platelet count, clinical symptoms.
I REALLY do NOT understand why this is so hard to understand!
Are you saying that Tefferi wrote an abstract for ASH in which he stated that there were four CR's
FYI The abstract doesn't say there are "4 CRs". It says there were 4 patients who met "the BM and peripheral blood morphologic criteria for CR" (I.e. they were not CRs because they were missing the "clinical" criteria that is necessary to call it a CR per Teffiri's own paper on definitions of MF response.)
This is, I believe, JQ's point. You are saying there were 4 CRs. Tefferi isn't claiming that.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
