chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I sometimes wonder how much of Hillary's difficulties are about her, her history, and skills or how brilliantly, ruthlessly, and tirelessly the GOP have worked to define her over the last 20 years. She has been one of their favorite villains ever since Hillarycare... and probably even before that. (Don't really remember what Hillary care proposed, but I do wonder if modern Repubs would like it better or worse than Obamacare) For me, it's just because she is a curmudgeon. Between her inability to commit to any policy in public, her treatment of others, the stories I used to hear from my secret service friends. She is a crotchety lady. But that is fairly common with many attorneys in high stress positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 How about the Center for Desease Control ( CDC ) I like how you libel me but give no example I can respond to.. The question is how many people are coming here. There are 2 in this thread that I've clearly and directly pointed out. 1. That nobody is selling their drugs less in the US for Canada. Well that's not true because a lot of generics do sell less here than in Canada so much so that over all generics are actually cheaper in the US. Yes overall, we pay more for drugs than Canadians, BUT we also use more drugs and more of the newest drugs, and generics in the US do in general sell for less. I'm not even sure when you take into the types and amounts of drugs the US takes, we actually aren't doing better than Canada. But certainly the claim that NOBODY is selling drugs for less than in Canada has to be false or we would not be paying less for generics. 2. That the public pays the majority of the costs for Pharma R&D. I've pointed out that the R&D budgets of even ONLY the large Pharma companies adds up to tens of billions dollars while the NIH TOTAL budget is about $30 billion (see post 13094). On the discussion of US Pharmaceutical spending and drug innovation/the current business model of the Pharma industry, this seems relevant: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/25/9393805/american-drug-prices-economist-interview I don’t love the fact that the United States is effectively subsidizing drug innovation worldwide. But I’d rather have that happen than have no one subsidizing development. It’s completely possible we might be having more innovation than our society values. Can you talk about that a little more? How good is the evidence that the larger amount we spend on drugs in the United States really does increase innovation? I think some people look at the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies and think that certainly they could do just as good work if they weren’t making as much money. CG: There are several studies that show it’s certainly a positive market, and that when markets become more profitable we see drug research targeting those markets. I have research showing that when we passed Medicare’s drug benefit, there was an increase in clinical activity around drugs that treat the diseases of elderly people. Amy Finkelstein at MIT has shown that the passage of vaccine mandates leads to more research in developing vaccine products. We definitely show the market responds in the way you think it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I sometimes wonder how much of Hillary's difficulties are about her, her history, and skills or how brilliantly, ruthlessly, and tirelessly the GOP have worked to define her over the last 20 years. She has been one of their favorite villains ever since Hillarycare... and probably even before that. (Don't really remember what Hillary care proposed, but I do wonder if modern Repubs would like it better or worse than Obamacare) I agree with all that... But she also does it to herself... Raising more than a Billion dollars largely from corporations who she's going to be responsible for regulating smells bad. Last night in the debate she side stepped Glass Stiegel question and it was glaring compared to Bernie's clear answer on it. I also thought it was glaring when she demurred on breaking up the too big to fail banks given she's raised millions of dollars from those pukes. It also doesn't help her that her Husband's political model was to push to the center and dare the left to abandon him; thus ensuring a Republican victory.. Right now the left has a choice and Hillary Clinton has never been a liberal or progressive before this campaign.. Now all the sudden she's more liberal than Bernie Sanders. It's just implausible, and goes directly to her credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Painfully suffered through watching the Democrats Debate and came away thinking both are more qualified to do commercials for Reverse Mortgages or Life Alert. Good thing they have some new, fresh ideas.........from the 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Painfully suffered through watching the Democrats Debate and came away thinking both are more qualified to do commercials for Reverse Mortgages or Life Alert. Good thing they have some new, fresh ideas.........from the 60's. They aren't your fathers oldsmobile, it's your grandfathers oldsmobile. "progressive" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The thought of Trump or Cruz making those nominations just sent chills down my spine! And the thought of Hillary doing it does the same to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Pretty sure I even gave the example of my neighbor doing so for costs....you know that right? Odd all their doctors(in your words) would come here to be trained ....pretty sure there is a reason besides experiencing our culture Sure, good schools...but that doesn't mean that our medicine is better. And the thought of Hillary doing it does the same to me As has been said Hillary is Reagan...why does she scare you? Seriously, Hillary is the Moderate's candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 And the thought of Hillary doing it does the same to me Why? If you listen to this board, she's as moderate as you would want in a Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Bernie needs to channel his inner Rick, invent a time machine, and bring a 20 year younger version of himself from the past to now. Here's Bernie 20 years ago, 2006: (He's the one on the left, BTW...) Or pick a decade: Bernie in high school, circa 1958 Bernie in 1963 Bernie in 1971 Bernie in 1981 Bernie in 1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 LOL https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/05/hillary-clinton-just-suggested-shes-not-establishment-come-on/ Hillary Clinton just suggested she’s not ‘establishment.’ Come on.Oh, goodness. Did Clinton really mean to suggest that she is not and cannot be a part of the "establishment" because she is a woman, on a Thursday night, on a debate stage in New Hampshire? Well, intended or not, she really did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary = more Ginsbergs/Sotomayors. Rubio = more Roberts/Kennedys Cruz = more Thomas/Scalias Trump???? Maybe Mark Cuban and Jimmy Fallon I'm not up to speed on current far left jurists, so I have no idea who Bernie would appoint. Make no mistake about it though, this is the ACTUAL most important issue of the campaign. Sadly, most people don't understand it. LOL https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/05/hillary-clinton-just-suggested-shes-not-establishment-come-on/ Not shocking. Hillary played the Vagina card. Just shocked that it came this early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 1. That nobody is selling their drugs less in the US for Canada. Well that's not true because a lot of generics do sell less here than in Canada so much so that over all generics are actually cheaper in the US. Yes overall, we pay more for drugs than Canadians, BUT we also use more drugs and more of the newest drugs, and generics in the US do in general sell for less. Peter I gave you five sources which disagree with you. Its not just Canada. Americans pay more for their drugs than any other country in the world... I was gratified to hear that very stat quoted on the Presidential debate last night by both Hillary and Bernie. I'm not even sure when you take into the types and amounts of drugs the US takes, we actually aren't doing better than Canada. I hear you Peter.. and I love how I'm making facts up.. although I give you five sources which support my statement... but you don't site a single source and feel comfortable libeling me. But certainly the claim that NOBODY is selling drugs for less than in Canada has to be false or we would not be paying less for generics. I would think the quotes... Americans spend 2x6 times what everybody else spends on named brand drugs would have commanded your attention for our discussion.. or the multiple quotes that Americans spend more money annually on Drugs than any other country in the world would both be more pertinent than whether I can find generic aspirin on sale in Canada cheaper than in an emergency room in the States. 2. That the public pays the majority of the costs for Pharma R&D. I've pointed out that the R&D budgets of even ONLY the large Pharma companies adds up to tens of billions dollars while the NIH TOTAL budget is about $30 million (see post 13094). An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III) The industry fought, and won, a nine-year legal battle to keep congressional investigators from the General Accounting Office from seeing the industry’s complete R&D records. (See Section IV) Congress can subpoena the records but has failed to do so. That might owe to the fact that in 1999-2000 the drug industry spent $262 million on federal lobbying, campaign contributions and ads for candidates thinly disguised as "issue" ads. (See accompanying report, "The Other Drug War: Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists") Drug industry R&D does not appear to be as risky as companies claim. In every year since 1982, the drug industry has been the most profitable in the United States, according to Fortune magazine’s rankings. During this time, the drug industry’s returns on revenue (profit as a percent of sales) have averaged about three times the average for all other industries represented in the Fortune 500. It defies logic that R&D investments are highly risky if the industry is consistently so profitable and returns on investments are so high. (See Section V) Drug industry R&D is made less risky by the fact that only about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the last two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic gains over existing drugs. Most were "me-too" drugs, which often replicate existing successful drugs. (See Section VI) In addition to receiving research subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. (See Section VII) http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065 On the discussion of US Pharmaceutical spending and drug innovation/the current business model of the Pharma industry, this seems relevant: I think the Pharma industry has big problems Peter. How else can one justify hiking the cost of a life saving drug 5000% over one year? How else can one justify charging 2x6 times the cost for drugs in the US vs abroad? They are killing people not to make profits.. but to make more profits and it's shameful. Turing CEO Martin Shkreli is an extreme case.. but what he did appears to be entirely legal by our laws.. Laws every drug company in the states lobbied for and currently operates under and it's shameful. Turing CEO Martin Shkreli Unapologetic for 5,000% Drug Price Hike http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/10/23/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-unapologetic-for-5000-drug-price-hike.html This is the new poster boy of the US pharma industry. Change is a coming. I don’t love the fact that the United States is effectively subsidizing drug innovation worldwide. But I’d rather have that happen than have no one subsidizing development. It’s completely possible we might be having more innovation than our society values.[/size] I love how Drug companies caste themselves as altruistically selling their products at a loss all over the world and can only stay in business by Raping Americans on domestic costs.. I love how otherwise rational people, reflexively subscribe to this nonsensical model. Drug companies sell their products overseas for 1/6th the cost because it's profitable to do so. There is no other explanation. They sell their drugs here for so very much simple because they can. They have invested Billions into our political system and created a regulatory environment where any price is legal.. and that's with us paying for the majority of the research. Can you talk about that a little more? How good is the evidence that the larger amount we spend on drugs in the United States really does increase innovation? I think some people look at the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies and think that certainly they could do just as good work if they weren’t making as much money. Drug companies aren't all that innovative. When you actually have to work for your money it inspires innovation. When you can simple make profits via immoral acts it's much safer and business people will do that rather than take risks on actually innovating. Criminals don't have to innovate to make profits they simple charge more... And I use the word Criminal in the moral sense, not the legal one.. Cause what they are doing is perfectly legal in the United States. The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X) http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065 PhRMA’s central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund expensive, risky and innovative research and development (R&D) for new drugs. If anything is done to moderate prices or profits, R&D will suffer, and, as PhRMA’s president recently claimed, "it’s going to harm millions of Americans who have life-threatening conditions." But this R&D scare card – or canard – is built on myths, falsehoods and misunderstandings, all of which are made possible by the drug industry’s staunch refusal to open its R&D records to congressional investigators or other independent auditors. ..... Drug industry R&D is made less risky by the fact that only about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the last two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic gains over existing drugs. Most were "me-too" drugs, which often replicate existing successful drugs. (See Section VI) http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065 Painfully suffered through watching the Democrats Debate and came away thinking both are more qualified to do commercials for Reverse Mortgages or Life Alert. Good thing they have some new, fresh ideas.........from the 60's. I think it was the best democratic debate yet.. Given most of the democratic debates have sucked. Rubio = more Roberts/Kennedys You would put Roberts with Kennedy? I don't think Rubio is a moderate even if he does look 12. I'm not up to speed on current far left jurists, so I have no idea who Bernie would appoint. Maybe Berger? Why? If you listen to this board, she's as moderate as you would want in a Republican. Republicans don't want a moderate... The moderates on the GOP side of the house are Kasich and Trump; and nobody thinks of them as Moderates except the other folks on stage at a GOP debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Nobody liked Ted Cruz, Part 1,453 http://theslot.jezebel.com/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-and-track-down-a-ted-cr-1752337625 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Rubio = more Roberts/Kennedys Not sure why this Rubio moderate myth comes up. Rubio's choices are likely to be pretty hard line conservative. The only issue he moderates some on is immigration. Otherwise, he's just the most sane of the far right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Not shocking. Hillary played the Vagina card. Just shocked that it came this early. She's been playing that card for some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I agree with all that... But she also does it to herself... Raising more than a Billion dollars largely from corporations who she's going to be responsible for regulating smells bad. This is a perceptual trap and a standard that none other need to rise too. Jeb's war chest was considered a strength, not a sign that he was beholden. Cruz, Rubio, and everyone else who's running (with a qualified exception going to Trump and Sanders) all receive big time donations. The Kochs alone are investing 600 million dollars out of their own pockets to buy Republicans. Yet this charge is one that seems fairly uniquely aimed at Hillary. I do agree it's a problem. I dislike Citizens United (Citizens Untied might be more fitting) and think that our election laws have really become harmful to the country whether we're talking about fundraising, voter ID laws, gerrymandering or any of the other ways that elections are attempted to be fixed. What I kind of object to is the killing Hillary over it while giving others a pass. It's sort of like killing Hillary over the email thing when Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing. In fact, recent reports show that Condi had numerous classified documents on her private email server. Is Clinton then a unique devil or are we prey to the games of the manipulators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Bernie in 1991 Who knew Christopher Lloyd changed his name to Bernie Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This is a perceptual trap and a standard that none other need to rise too. Jeb's war chest was considered a strength, not a sign that he was beholden. Cruz, Rubio, and everyone else who's running (with a qualified exception going to Trump and Sanders) all receive big time donations. The Kochs alone are investing 600 million dollars out of their own pockets to buy Republicans. Yet this charge is one that seems fairly uniquely aimed at Hillary. I do agree it's a problem. I dislike Citizens United (Citizens Untied might be more fitting) and think that our election laws have really become harmful to the country whether we're talking about fundraising, voter ID laws, gerrymandering or any of the other ways that elections are attempted to be fixed. What I kind of object to is the killing Hillary over it while giving others a pass. It's sort of like killing Hillary over the email thing when Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing. In fact, recent reports show that Condi had numerous classified documents on her private email server. Is Clinton then a unique devil or are we prey to the games of the manipulators? That's whitewashing some of the actual issues. Nobody begrudges a candidate for collecting money. But Hillary is the only one collecting millions from people and then going on the campaign trail and saying she's going to go after those same people. It's not a question of morality, it's just that nobody believes her. And the more she says it, the more she looks bad. And when Chuck Todd asks her if she'll release the transcripts and she doesn't say she will, it makes her look like she's hiding something. As for comparing her use of a private server vs Condi and Powell, it's apples to Porsches. She had an actual server that she controlled in her house. That's wholly different from having a private email account. Further, when Powell and Rice had them, there hadn't been a directive from the White House specifically telling people NOT to do it. Again, it's not criminal, it justs shows who she is and that she thinks rules don't apply to her. You are right, people don't like her. But that's not the GOPs fault. It's hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary is no different than Bill. They have a way of changing definitions to fit their agendas. Bill and his definition of sex, Hillary and her definition of Progressives, her definition of classified, Top Secret, SAP materials on email, her definition of video protests on Benghazi, her definition of Womens Rights (which she supports, as long as it doesn't apply to Bills victims as they are all liars). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Nobody liked Ted Cruz, Part 1,453 http://theslot.jezebel.com/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-and-track-down-a-ted-cr-1752337625 I accept the point that nobody likes Ted Cruz. He's an unscrupulous selfish asshole. Makes sense that he's been that way his whole life. But that article is crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 And the thought of Hillary doing it does the same to me Why? I mean, ol' chip has spent the last six months telling us that she's a corporate Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why? I mean, ol' chip has spent the last six months telling us that she's a corporate Republican. Do you think Hillary will appoint a Judge like Scalia or Ginsberg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I hear you Peter.. and I love how I'm making facts up.. although I give you five sources which support my statement... but you don't site a single source and feel comfortable libeling me. I gave you a source. I would think the quotes... Americans spend 2x6 times what everybody else spends on named brand drugs would have commanded your attention for our discussion.. or the multiple quotes that Americans spend more money annually on Drugs than any other country in the world would both be more pertinent than whether I can find generic aspirin on sale in Canada cheaper than in an emergency room in the States. I added the bold. You do understand that NAME BRAND does not equal NOBODY. By defintion, NAME BRAND is a SUBSET of the population. And the source I gave you was for PRESCRIPTION generics, which you'd know if you bothered to read it so any discussion of aspirin is irrelevant. Your study is SPECIFICALLY leaving out the things that we pay LESS for, and then saying oh we pay more. We also use more drugs. Of course we pay more. But given how many drug we use and the types of drugs we use, do we really pay more? Your link with respect to the NIH and funding are very misleding in the part that you quoted. The left out a key word that if you read the actual report they add in: "In all, U.S. taxpayer-funded researchers conducted 55 percent of the published research projects leading to the discovery and development of these drugs (and foreign academic institutions 30 percent)." I added the bold. Guess what Pharma doesn't do a lot of? publishing. In most cases, they DON'T want to publish. They DON'T want to share what they know with other people. On the hand, in academia, publishing is key. That's how you get and keep jobs. Getting future grants pretty much REQUIRES that you publish so of course people that have grants are going to publish, while companies that aren't dependent on grants don't publish. ONLY the large Pharma company budgets on R&D add up to tens of billions of dollars a year. The ENTIRE NIH budget is about $30 billion. I think the Pharma industry has big problems Peter. How else can one justify hiking the cost of a life saving drug 5000% over one year? How else can one justify charging 2x6 times the cost for drugs in the US vs abroad? They are killing people not to make profits.. but to make more profits and it's shameful. Turing CEO Martin Shkreli is an extreme case.. but what he did appears to be entirely legal by our laws.. Laws every drug company in the states lobbied for and currently operates under and it's shameful. That isn't really relevant to the conversation and there are several things that could be done to alleviate such situations without going to a single payer system. And realistically, the FDA did one of the things that's obvious to do (make it easier to get into the generic market). http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/22/imprimis-turing-daraprim/ "Turing Pharmaceuticals sparked nationwide outrage and government investigations when it raised the cost of a generic drug used for AIDS and cancer from $13.50 to $750 a capsule. Today, a San Diego biomedical company today introduced a competitor to that drug that sells for $1 a capsule." If the FDA keeps the policy (which realistically is a violation of their normal policies) that is allowing Imprimis to sell their drug without going through the normal FDA generic approval process, we will never see another case like what Turing did. The question is how important are the normal FDA policies with respect to entering the generic market and consumer safety. And in fact, a single player system doesn't even stop somebody from doing what he did. Drug companies can raise the price 5,000X to the Canadian market. Canada could have said we aren't paying, but guess what? Then the people that need that medicine would still be in trouble and people would still be in screaming. Marketing is an important part of the Pharma industry because as I've already pointed out (in the post where you I addressed your claim that most of the R&D funding came from the public) is that many of the companies have a large consumer products division and consumer product companies spend a lot of money on advertising. Do a search of Johnson and Johnson advertising in google images. It is baby soap, shampoo, and powder. The academic research is clear. The more money spent in an area means the more research is done in that area. We are spending a lot of the money on NEW DRUGS and so are funding and dictating research areas for NEW DRUGS. This has a pros and cons. We pay a lot more for NEW DRUGS, but the R&D is heavily slanted towards our needs. LESS money means less R&D spending and realistically less competition. You can wave your hands all you want and talk about spending on marketing and innovation (I really don't understand how you can say they aren't good at innovation without some sort of comparison. They aren't good at innovation with respect to what?). The actual research done supports that argument. The price of Vigra got driven down even while it was under patent because other companies developed their own products (with their own patents), but those products still generated competition that drove down the price. **EDIT** To give you a comparison with respect to publishing, you talked about the computer industry in your initial post. Transistor speeds are important component of CPU speeds that are now hitting limits: https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-CPU-clock-speeds-increased-in-the-last-5-years Intel is using hafnium is an important component with respect to their gate dielectric. I used the Web of Science and did a search for hanium and gate dielectic. I looked at the top 10 results. Not a single one had an author from or reported funding from a private company. I made it more specific and added computer to the search (so computer hanium and gate dielectric). I only got 9 hits. All of them have multiple authors. On ONE of them, ONE author is from a private company (STMicroelectronics). There is no report of funding from a private company. If you go based on the published research, the vast majority of research on key materials related to CPU speed is being done with public money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sure, good schools...but that doesn't mean that our medicine is better. our medical training is among the most advanced in the world, as are our procedures/technology....and more expensive to provide Kinda like our space program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Oh Hillary's Supreme Court....well guess she fails her own litmus test LOL. She is a gem. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court Clinton: ‘I have a bunch of litmus tests’ for Supreme Court nominees“I’m looking for people who understand the way the real world works,” Clinton said. “Who don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to support business, to support the idea that you know, money is speech, that gutted the Voting Rights Act.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.