A few days ago I had the misfortune of interacting with the...

A few days ago I had the misfortune of interacting with the resident fake doctor.

He posted this piece of misinformation:

"Most mortality, even in severe aGVHD, is from remission of the primary cancer."

I posted: "Who knew that cancer remission could kill you? Or as the “doc” claims, is the primary cause of mortality."

Let's break this down so that even the fake doctor can understand.
Remission is a good thing, recurrence/relapse is a bad thing. Doctors know this.
Remission doesn't cause mortality, it delays or eliminates the existing cancer as the cause of mortality.

The fake doc then replied:
"You clearly don't understand the implication of that, with regards to MSB's claims.It's a huge confounding factor."

I replied: "Remission isn’t a confounding issue in trials “doc”. Recurrence is, real doctors know that."

So the fake doc replied:
"It absolutely is.When comparing survival rates between two different historical batches of cells, it's very likely that the increased survival seen in the newer cells is at least partly due to improvements in the treatment regimens of the cancer.You understand that? It's not that difficult of a concept."

Note the change ... remission started off as being the major cause of most mortality, now it's a confounding issue because of the drop in mortality.
Note that the fake doc continually engages in projection by claiming I'm the one not understanding things, despite the fact that he's just done a 180 and is trying another avenue to sow doubt.
Now it's increased patient survival is making the new results look better than the old.

The reality is that in "severe aGVHD" to quote the fake doc, the survival prognosis is extremely poor to the extent that we are talking a few months before death (45-65% within 6 months for aGVHD and severe (Grade 4) at 90%). And it may surprise the fake doc, but real doctors can ascertain the primary cause of death of aGVHD patients (normally organ failure) versus the re-emergence of the blood cancers that led to the treatment in the first case.

Since our fake doc is likely deficient in mathematics, I'll let him into a secret - a 90% death rate for severe cases of aGVHD within 6 months because of aGVHD tends to leave little room for the recurrence of the original cancer (not the remission) to enable his statement to be even remotely true: "Most mortality, even in severe aGVHD, is from remission of the primary cancer."
It's WRONG, completely and utterly WRONG. And no real doctor would ever have uttered it.

After performing his 180 with a half pike, the fake doc leads on with some more misinformation:

"But what that means is Si's assertion that the newer potency cells are showing increased survival is actually pretty meaningless, in reality"

Of course he's using his newly handwaved "increased survival from remission" garbage to formulate this new line of undermining.

The fake doc posted:"But what that means is Si's assertion that the newer potency cells are showing increased survival is actually pretty meaningless, in reality.The fda knows this. And it doesn't really matter if you understand it or not."

We've already seen that the basis of this is utter garbage, but there's more, the potency data for recent manufacturing is actually based on biomarkers that the company has indicated are important in the cells having effect. The assays of newly produced cells produce a consistent level of these biomarkers and apparently this is an improvement over prior manufacturing. [Note that what I am posting this in no way claims the cells work, just that the new potency assay levels have NOTHING to do with survival rates of current or previous trials.

Also note the heroic levels of projection again throughout his post - exactly who is it that doesn't understand things ..."

In an earlier interaction the fake doc wrote:"I don't know why you're trying so hard, coops, you're fine, don't fret."

Once again his heroic levels of projection are on display. Trying hard? Seriously?In the last month I've posted precisely 14 times, including this post, with one of those being a post giving a fellow reader the link to the conference call. I doubt if those 14 posts have even made it to an aggregate of 100 lines.

In the last year I've posted an additional 4 times. Is that really trying hard? And I own the stock.

The fake doc had posted 16 times just today (and the night is young!), nearly 150 times in the last 9 days and he doesn't even own the stock, in fact it seems he doesn't want anything to do with the stock.So who exactly is trying hard?

On another thread the fake doc wrote:"Controls aren't for patient safety. They are used to show effect of the treatment.You need to brush up on your basic science. This isn't the FDA being difficult. This is the scientific method."
Of course this is total bollocks.Controls are used for measuring both safety and efficacy.

Note the projection ... who really needs to learn the scientific method?

When called on it the clown responded with:"controls are used in in vitro studies as well. What patients are kept safe there?"
Seriously? You really can't make this stuff up

So why is the fake doc doing this? He claims it is altruistic, countering the misinformation ...strangely the fake doc isn't as altruistic to his patients, being over a year without updating his COVID booster status. Initially he claimed he was in a high risk role, but when called on this he now claims its a much lower risk and COVID isn't as prevalent now (it should be noted that just 2 months ago the weekly death rate in Australia was 35), he also claims it was due to laziness - that laziness being an inability to take an elevator in the hospital he claims to work in. He also claims to be doing shift work (to explain his 24x7 posting habits), but somehow he's doing "research". Research isn't done by shiftworkers typically, so this really doesn't check out.

My guess is the fake doc is a med science student a discipline made famous for the irreproducibility of its results, the poor scientific understanding of its supervisors and its journals.Likely he's working under a proctologist (likely literally) staring at images that bear a strong resemblence to his recent captures with his selfie-stick.

I leave you with one of the high points of med science - enjoy.
https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/