The Psychology of Trading, page-641

JB, I think your understanding of emotional intelligence is flawed.

Could be. But I think trying to manipulate others emotions in a forum like this is practically impossible whilst at the same time trying to be a genuine truthseeker which is characterised as negativity.

You want to find out if something is valid see if it stands against a challenge - that's how science works - propose theories and refute them - I think it was also a method of Socrates.

To be emotionally intelligent in a forum like this it seems one has to post rarely and keep the posts positive - eg - otherpersepctive, ecoool, yourself.

So far your posts mainly focus on the shortcomings and doubts of the science. I would be genuinely interested if you would share some of positives, if you don't mind.

You might look for my post to whytee when he suggest - maybe about April 2022 or something like that that there was no evidence - I disagreed. Imascientist popped in.

I like your posts - but in the end the science is the overwhelmingly important consideration (that's biological not psychological) - and the science though time consuming to learn stays solid. You can take it with you.

Currently it seems like dachopper and otherperspective both think something new and exciting has happened on the IL2Ralpha front.

I don't. I think its ODAC take two.

There isn't anymore new data from new patients.

There were 11 patients in study001 that had single lot treatments (so the IL2Ralpha could have been measured at release test time) and that also had blood taken from them at baseline and at day 28 to check amongst other things the IL2Ralpha (CD25) in their blood.

EAP only beings in a maximum of 14 more because almost all of the EAP275 patients are confounded by 1) getting lots from multiple donors or 2) getting other treatments from the treating physician in the first 28 days (this was the reason GVHD001 was run - to get that confounding variable out) and 3) product prior to 2009 was from the old - unoptimized product - MSB spent a lot of time arguing at ODAC (with some credibility in my opinion) that the older product had had too much trypsinization time - so the cell receptors - like TNFR1 and also in my opinion INF gamma receptors would have been damaged.

If there isn't blood from the patients that are good from EAP275 - the 14 or so of them that aren't otherwise confounded - them it can't be matched against their IL2Ralpha or TNFR1 readings from their lots.