Tomorrow a regional VP and the CFO show up at my “day job” for two days. When they leave (if I’m still employed) I will be slipping into Month End where I face Hell Week #1 and then Hell Week #2. The I fly out to Vegas for a seminar, return home, have one day to do my private life stuff, spend the next day doing our August financial review, then I fly out to a conference in Washington DC. By the time I wrap all of that up this topic will no doubt be a “dead issue”.

I cannot devote the time I need to take this topic any further cuz I would have to do some rather intensive delving into the topic as well as call in a very big favor that I’d just as soon not chew through except for a truly meaningful issue.

Although I believe this issue is meaningful, I don’t believe we can have any impact upon or within it. It is fascinating though and I am genuinely saddened that I will miss the “adventure” of this unexpected opportunity to expand my understanding on something new.

You can always be (partially) wrong, no problem. It’s only uncomfortable/embarassing when you took part in one direction so strongly

I’ve left this topic and moved along but I did want to comment about the above gs.

I totally disagree with you, I do not find it a problem at all to admit an error, in fact I consider it to be a healthy thing to do not to mention the intellectually honest thing to do.

Last time I checked there wasn’t a perfect person around so it’s not like I’m the lone wolf when I make a mistake, everyone makes mistakes.

Besides, admitting that I make them on that “oh so rare occasion” helps to keep my ego in check

I think it was a good idea to contact CDC and that you even succeeded to get Shaw’s opinion.
Well, IMO you shouldn’t have used such strong words in your comments, though.
You can always be (partially) wrong, no problem. It’s only uncomfortable/embarassing when
you took part in one direction so strongly
I don’t yet know who is right about the claiming for a patent on parts of the virus(-code).
Hammond says yes, CDC says no, I don’t really know from the patent-wording,
it’s ambiguous for me.

is it this:

> WHAT IS CLAIMED TS:
> 1. A nucleic acid molecule comprising a polynucleotide encoding an influenza protein selected
> from the group consisting of hemagglutinin A (HA), neuraminidase (NA), M2 Protein, and
> nucleoprotein (NP), wherein said polynucleotide comprises
> (a) a plasmid taken from Table 1 (or its insert), or
> (b) an analog of said plasmid or insert having at least 95% identity thereto.

?

The patent claims are clear, and if the CDC PR hack told you what you say he told you, then I’m afraid that what he said was an outright lie.

Just read it. Read the claims. Refer back to the patent application text to confirm what they mean. This is tedious but it’s not rocket science.