johnson & johnson, page-34

In the scientific community conclusions are constantly challenged via the peer review process whereby the data, the hypothesis, the method of analysis and the resultant conclusions are reviewed, and ultimately challenged where they don't stack up. The same goes on here.

Neither you nor J8 seem to like this process. Whenever it is shown that you have used incorrect data, you simply change the subject as J8 has done this morning. Whenever is it shown that your comparisons are misleading you call people names like "cheerleeders" as you have once again done here.

All of my posts directly question your data and methods. If they don't stack up there is little to be gained by calling me names. We fully understand that you have a friend that works for Gilead who feeds you information (as you have pointed out in various posts here in HC) and we understand your interest in that company.

So, once again rgc, since you saw fit the other day to post what looks like blatently incorrect inferrences about the group of patients Biotron used in this trial, please substantiate your claim that the trial participants were in fact "treatment naive Asian G1 CC patients".

But of course we all know that none of the patients need that descriptions don't we thus its not only reasonably to question you conclusion but also your method.