Ann: Remestemcel Clinical and Potency Studies Presented at Tandem, page-100

So don't take the arrogant jibes personally. They just don't want to have their bubble dreams pricked by reality

Phaedrus post bothered me because of the great analysis ticks it got for what was essentially in my opinion a grandstanding stunt.

40 posters GA'd it last time I looked. That has got to be a good portion of those that frequently read this forum. A jury in my understanding has 12 jurors. 40 people is more than enough to fill three of them. And it bothers me that such simple misdirecting tricks coupled with a brazen confidence as phaedrus displayed can (even when completely decoupled from the truth) fool (or perhaps not fool - more seduce to the dark side) so many.

It is not hard for me to see the humanity in others - but the humanity in others is not always a pleasant thing. It can be grubby and repulsive sometimes. Sometimes it disgusts me.

I enjoy researching but want to share with others - it would be hard for me to research if there were none to talk about things with - but I don't want to share with bad people.

Phaedrus actually did go into the reference paper I provided - I know that because he posted an excerpt from it. But just about everything else about his post would have been aimed to discourage others from learning as he himself took the opportunity to do by attacking and discrediting the messenger.

I don't want to be providing an education for phaedrus (or those that behave like he did) when phaedrus is behaving badly even as he is getting it. It feels like he is stealing and disrespecting my work (which I was happy to share for free to people of good character) whilst attacking my character - and the discouraging thing is the character attacks work - other posters (yelrom for instance spoke of bad actors to be put on ignore) finneces in a post of his he had removed pretty much claimed, I think, I was shorting - I never have.

Almost no one bothered to read what I thought was a good post initially but dozens read the hit piece aimed at discrediting the poster who wrote it.

Yet what is ultimately more important - to shareholders and potential shareholders what the contents of presentations are is more important and the Kaplan-Meier is a tool that MSB uses a lot and a lot of people are not understanding what they are being shown - as it very clear - because a lot of the time the Kaplan-Meiers being shown are wrong or misleading as they are presented.

In the recent presentation announced by Mesoblast the Kaplan-Meier is missing the number 1 at the front starting a count of at 0 instead of ten - it doesn't have censored shown - the whole thing is a useless meaningless bit of fluff as presented.

The FDA will see straight through statistical crap of that sort and likely like me (some of them on moments of annoyance may actually want to punish it or scold it for being sloppy and trying to exert political pressure playing around with the sympathy over sick kids stuff) - yet MSB puts a foreward looking statement disclaimer on the front of their presentations and announcements and makes statements like - the validated potency assay - and the nuff nuffs on this forum think its not even an appropriate question for them or others to ask - are such statements to be taken as facts or are they merely puffery that MSB can walk away from.

Grrrrrrr.