When someone states that I have said something I did not say, I will certainly refute it vigorously. And, when someone states as fact, based on their claimed experience as a medical professional, things that are simply not true, those statements are going to be refuted too.
Your own post shows that I did NOT say that "The flu shot causes the flu." In a series of posts, I stated that in one instance with which I was familiar, a vaccine that was manufactured incorrectly did cause people to get sick. By cherry-picking one sentence of one of my many posts on the subject, and then mischaracterizing what it said, you tried to make it appear that I was making a claim that the flu vaccine caused the flu in all cases. This is not and has never been the case. However, it is clearly an attempt to discredit me. (and one that took some effort, given that they had to go back several weeks to find that discussion.)
You are also now saying that you stated only that a lozenge "MIGHT" be an effective delivery for candida infections. This is not true. You stated that a vaginal suppository WAS an appropriate treatment for ORAL candida infections -- "often we use a fluconasol vaginal troche" -- implying that you are treating patients with it RIGHT NOW, and that "a partner" might formulate such a lozenge for Bril-OM, which you claimed would solve an imaginary problem with using a rinse. You admit that this statement is untrue -- that you are not treating patients with this, nor does this medication exist. Your statement throws shade on the scientists at IPIX -- as if you have superior knowledge, and that they were not capable of having such a lozenge formulated in the unlikely event that it was better to have patients with horrible lesions take the significant time and effort to suck on a lozenge (with its concomitant use of facial and tongue muscles to dissolve AND SWISH IT which would be agonizing).How could making someone dissolve a lozenge and then swish it around to cover all oral regions possibly be better than using a rinse which is swished in the first place?
In just your third post, you made this statement:
That is untrue, given that there is ALREADY partnership interest. The data are compelling RIGHT NOW, as stated by the CEO of the company, and by those of us who have pointed out that this oral rinse reduces by HALF the incidence of OM when compared to the usual rate of incidence.
It is always possible that no adequate deal will be presented to IPIX, but by your 3rd post here you are stating a comment which can only be viewed most charitably as strange in light of one of the reasons you say you are posting -- to wit, why the placebo patients had such a low rate of OM. Others view it as soft-bashing.
Unlike lieHUB, we will continue to think about whether someone's statements are true. Given that of the 16 posts you have made since 2012, fully half of them are on this board within the last 26 hours or so, and your only other posts are about an African oil and gas exploration company, I think one can easily see why this many misstatements in a sudden burst of posting are viewed with skepticism.
Your own post shows that I did NOT say that "The flu shot causes the flu." In a series of posts, I stated that in one instance with which I was familiar, a vaccine that was manufactured incorrectly did cause people to get sick. By cherry-picking one sentence of one of my many posts on the subject, and then mischaracterizing what it said, you tried to make it appear that I was making a claim that the flu vaccine caused the flu in all cases. This is not and has never been the case. However, it is clearly an attempt to discredit me. (and one that took some effort, given that they had to go back several weeks to find that discussion.)
You are also now saying that you stated only that a lozenge "MIGHT" be an effective delivery for candida infections. This is not true. You stated that a vaginal suppository WAS an appropriate treatment for ORAL candida infections -- "often we use a fluconasol vaginal troche" -- implying that you are treating patients with it RIGHT NOW, and that "a partner" might formulate such a lozenge for Bril-OM, which you claimed would solve an imaginary problem with using a rinse. You admit that this statement is untrue -- that you are not treating patients with this, nor does this medication exist. Your statement throws shade on the scientists at IPIX -- as if you have superior knowledge, and that they were not capable of having such a lozenge formulated in the unlikely event that it was better to have patients with horrible lesions take the significant time and effort to suck on a lozenge (with its concomitant use of facial and tongue muscles to dissolve AND SWISH IT which would be agonizing).How could making someone dissolve a lozenge and then swish it around to cover all oral regions possibly be better than using a rinse which is swished in the first place?
In just your third post, you made this statement:
Quote:it is possible that the data will not be compelling enough to cause any interest in any partnership/buyout/etc.
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=488...z51LR2b0sa
That is untrue, given that there is ALREADY partnership interest. The data are compelling RIGHT NOW, as stated by the CEO of the company, and by those of us who have pointed out that this oral rinse reduces by HALF the incidence of OM when compared to the usual rate of incidence.
It is always possible that no adequate deal will be presented to IPIX, but by your 3rd post here you are stating a comment which can only be viewed most charitably as strange in light of one of the reasons you say you are posting -- to wit, why the placebo patients had such a low rate of OM. Others view it as soft-bashing.
Unlike lieHUB, we will continue to think about whether someone's statements are true. Given that of the 16 posts you have made since 2012, fully half of them are on this board within the last 26 hours or so, and your only other posts are about an African oil and gas exploration company, I think one can easily see why this many misstatements in a sudden burst of posting are viewed with skepticism.
10
