Ann: Investor Presentation, page-507

As usual I wont stoop to your insults.

But you seem a bit confused on the B/S. You seem to have got confused over who of the many on here you were arghuing with, appearing to believe, at least the voices in your head, who knows, that I claimed "The FDA are going after Cynata to get what they want. Sure, numb nuts."

Its hard to know with you as usual whether you are making a statement or attrributing one (that I never said of course).

What I actually did is educate you on lots of IPSC progress and regulatory backdrop that you are of course ignorant of including a nice pretty picture - as you declared yourself you were uninterested in reading the FDA information and regulaotry links I posted:


You then went of on some tangent showing how the FDA does not develop new therapies? WHo knows at this point who are what you are arguing with. No Pledge, the FDA does not develop therapies.

If you actually read the links I posted, no one ever said they did. If you actually read what the FDA (and accordingly I said) they do actually do, and indeed have done for some time, is research "cell fate determination of human iPSCs, with an emphasis on hematopoietic and lymphoid differentiation".

Perhaps the italics confused you Pledge, that denotes sarcasm. A common grammatical practice.

You are a little confused I see on the full extent of what the FDA does. Regards IPSC's its does, and has, research in the biological processes required for blood and immune cell generation from iPSCs with particular rererence to hematopoietic and lymphoid differentiation - again as I said. If you don't think the FDA employs researchers in its roles and remit and specifically with regard to IPSC's study "iPSC-based cell/tissue culture systems, genetic engineering technology, and animal transplantation models to recapitulate in the laboratory this early developmental." or "develop and optimize differentiation conditions required for immune cell generation from hematopoietic progenitors" or "study the safe use of genetic engineering technologies that are increasing incorporated into regenerative medicine advanced therapy products." in there own research, then more fool you - the quotation marks denote the FDA by the way, but you know better in your head than official FDA releases.

The FDA does its own resarch contary to your crap B/S or angry voices in your head that lead you to beleive I alleged anything otherwise - certainly not that "it develops therapies, you might have to see someone about your reading or the voices Pledge.

I am literally above explaining to your even denser mate, that IPSC is not the "kid on the block" (they have been around since 2006 afterall) and the FDA, is advanced enought that it even reseachs "the specificity profiles of different genome editing tools is essential for improving the safety of products that incorporate these technologies. We use cell culture, high throughput sequencing, and animal models to study the impact of these endonucleases on human stem cell genome integrity, and the biological consequences of potential off-target genetic modifications. The resulting experimental data on efficiency and specificity of genome editing technologies will facilitate relevant regulatory policy development."

Of course the FDA does not develop new therapies. Earth calling Pledge. Gnome editing of IPSC's, let alone standard IPSC processes are pretty complicated and the FDA DOES DO LOTS OF RESEARCH INTO THE TECHNOLGIES SO IT IS INFORMED ON THE TECHNOLOGY AND ITS DECISIONS THEREIN.

No one ever suggested the FDA developed new therapies, only the angry voices in your head (your anger really does get the better of your reading and send you off on tangents).