Replies to post #169601 on Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

re: GERN

You can use all the caps you want, but you're still wrong. It's written poorly to be sure, but you need to do a "close reading."

The abstract can't be any clearer by stating 4 CRs were for bone marrow and peripheral blood, period.

That's not what the abstract means. You've mis-read it. By using the work "period," you show that you've mis-read the abstract.

I see exactly where you've gotten confused--and it's readily explainable by the lousy wording--but if you put the phraseolgy in context, you'll understand the meaning. You've taken the phraseology out its context and, thus, come up with an erroneous reading.


Bladerunner

[nuere]

GERN
Some added color from the CC yesterday.

Charles C. Duncan - Piper Jaffray Companies, Research Division
Okay. I understand, Chip. The other question I have, which is maybe a more global question, is regarding the IWG criteria. And that is, do you know if there's a way to modify the way that you look at CR, PR, and focus just on bone marrow peripheral blood morphology for patients and forget about clinical improvement? Or do you have to consider that, and was that an important consideration in these data?

John A. Scarlett - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Well, I'm not going to talk about the considerations in these data, but what I can say is that the IWG criteria for myelofibrosis is pretty clear. It's quite clear that CRs and PRs are intended to signify a disease modification and to achieve a CR, PR, clearly, you have to achieve other components of the response, the remission beyond pure bone marrow morphology, et cetera. So these are found in the blood paper in 2013 and include resolution of symptoms, spleen and liver not being palpable, and so forth. So I would just refer everyone to that paper.