“The historic clinical data is great because it gives a clear...

“The historic clinical data is great because it gives a clear indication that the drug works very well even though researchers didn't understand the drug”

So for you, it gives a clear indication that the drug works, but researchers didn’t understand the drug? So who are these researchers you are referring to? Are they scientists? Experts in their field? NOT YOUR FIELD, but theirs? Are you an expert who is able to say with authority on the subject, that the drug gives a clear indication it works? Therefore these researchers you refer to are somehow not worthy of assessing it, but somehow you are?

You really should stop doing this Mason. You have mates coming into the IMU threads and telling IMU holders to stop talking about RAC, yet holders of IMU are simply responding to your comments regarding RAC on the IMU threads, and it is in fact just you here talking about RAC. Those IMU holders who do care about Bisantrene and RAC can let us know here on HC that they too care about RAC and that is fine, but it appears to be on face value that nobody other than yourself, and 2 or 3 other non-holders here, care 1 iota about debating the ins and outs of the worthiness of RAC or Bisantrene.

I have absolutely nothing personal against RAC and honestly, I wish only good things for all RAC holders. I just don’t care for the constant bombardment of anti-IMU sentiment. That is purely what it is. Why you feel the constant need to attack IMU’s science and yet have constant praise for RAC is known only to you truly, but your presence here is shrouded in a somewhat murky yet mystical cloud regarding your intentions/agenda.

It’s not so much the debate on the merits of IMU’s achievements to date, but the rhetoric you employ to try and get your point across. Some of it clearly speaks ‘agenda’. It is unnecessary and IMO it is what puts many off. You are obviously educated and that does show, and there should always be open debate so we can all see and assess other’s opinions with open minds, but you are pushing your anti-IMU views of Imugene’s science onto readers and virtually declaring to all that there are no acceptable conclusions on IMU’s future apart from yours. You see, I never try and research then post my views on the intricacies of the science here, because quite frankly I would look like a fool. ‘Better to shut your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt?” So, I don’t. I only comment in general, to contribute what I can to the threads without trying to sound all knowledgeable when I’m not.

Much of what you say cannot possibly be construed as factual, as it is always laced with your own bias and skewed take on results, for or against. Many of these biased views are hinted to in your 1 liners that offer your personal opinion in between professional discussions, articles, etc., that you have copied in to your posts; however, these opinions of yours do not reference any expert to support your view, which is the adopted practise, as this would tend to support and back up your conclusions and opinions.

This is why you have been rebuked on these threads. Bias, anti-IMU sentiment, and cloudy agenda lies within these 1 liners.

GLTAH.