and physiognomy with the fellowship, it can be solved raw lots of thereres, not just Much but well it works great. If this case is not as much as idea of law, three per hundred, two point four nine, and a risk of your tolerance is difficult. That's a knowledge of that, but it's fine. Exactly. And so, so what we are cautioning is, a law for despair, caution and the closing terms of correctly known stress. It would be the authors are cautioning even though they found that in their study, they in fact found that they're in a human stroke that seems to be surface and in future studies may or may not be able to replicate that. In a way, the research is that the scientist I'm interested in, though, is the work of any work of the problem? Well, what they said, the inverse study, I'm not really good at that, they would imagine that
. They said, their study was, is if they were re-reaching into a highly, they can't, they couldn't see all the colorful, colorful theme pop models. They don't know the colors of theme pop models, they're really in the cool out one of the theme pop models, the bright red caution causes the stroke, but the authors there, they say, hey, we only hold out one theme pop model. The cameras fall against this approach. Yes, they resist. There's a bunch of references here that all of you will circle around and play against and give you the highest standard of view, respect to the pathologist's evaluation of what the reference to, yes sir. You want to talk about the reference to this
. Tell me a lot of you, apparently exposed, what's the structure of the work? Well, air first said, air said, we didn't round the road to a certain group of patients, and that certain group of patients, round the road, in fact, increased the rate of stroke. You just didn't notice the hypertension of the risk factor, correct? Or, if you identify any other, that you can do to prevent stroke, and if you're claiming it is treatment for prevention of stroke, aside from limiting your dimension, high blood pressure, what all your, there's, there's stuff smoking out of all the beats to beat, but you're claiming would clearly cover, you do the hypertension in order to reduce, reduce the risk of stroke, which is under your climate group prevention graph. Yes. So you would read on the use of the same drum to adjust for hypertension. In, in a, out use, the physical problems before our science did their work, the stroke was actually not the instant patient that were risked stroke, because hypertension has the risk of the colors of heart attack, the risk of kidney cell, the risk of eye damage. There's lots of bad things that come about from hypertension
. One, in addition to giving a high risk stroke, and so what the physicians would do is, if a patient came in that had hypertension and they were risked of a heart attack, and not really a risk stroke, and they weren't smoke, for example, the physician would give them realm of growth. The patient was, the physician population was a risk of stroke, and would not give them realm of legumes that died around for a day to walk. The case of your invention would not cover the administration of, or have hypertension, because even though the state was really bad, it was a risk bad, it was still somehow not clandet, and that's the alarm, or the kinds of requirements required the patient to be dying, as the risk of stroke, because those are the kinds of patients that were avoided, point out that way, and let them know that that would include people with a problem. Well, I have high potential, it's one of the risk factors. So I could, if it was like being alone, but yet, oh, yes, would it, it would not include people taking the drug, or to reduce hypertension, because that's the risk that people stroke. That is the apparent, the physician's back before this, before this venerous knowledge of work, the physicians would not face some hypertension alone, they would use patients' weight, or, you know, the number of the description, or have the most important work, would, most, have the potential for hypertension, to the client
. If it were for a patient who is dying, no risk of stroke, yes. Well, it doesn't happen, it wouldn't connect me that way. It should, it doesn't, it, forget whether it's stroke or not, but it's used for a rapid route, it's used to treat hypertension. Yes, and Rammelko said that Rammelko is Rammel somewhere there. Rammelko said, sorry, Frank, he says Rammelko is used to treat hypertension, but in fact, would this be all in the pursuit of death for many cause? Well, we're franking, Dr. Rammelko said he's used to this, Rammelko said, sorry, stroke, but that's looking sharp, and that's why we're involved in this location
. Well, this is, I mean, Rammelko's friends, he's used to this, he's come out in the air, and Rammelko said that, they have already studied, I think, that a little bit of an issue is the matter, to treat hypertension. Yes, yes. I would, that's exactly what I thought you acknowledged, because you said there were plenty of problems with the use of the graph, but treat hypertension, because that has an increased stroke. You mentioned there's not care for some other people that treat it, but that would be one group of takers of radicals. They used to say, we've not treated cover-up or client. Yes, isn't that a problem? The, Brampton, I mean, is it not as much as Brampton, nor Air, but here it would give them a recommended use of Rammelko for patients that were identified as being a risk
. So, Air showed increased, well, yes, stress, yes, and those with questions, I mean, the ability to apply this, exactly, I'm not sure whether this is a record of not a, I would not say, it's a 20-coloured tip, is this drug approved or privileged drug, yes, I believe it is now. One, I am not a bigger, maybe this is a legal question, but I'm not a bigger, why do you need prior ranch for reference stroke? I mean, that's paratomcaism, and there is a paratomcaism, and there is a non-screen to be used, if you didn't necessarily, the result is that now we use the different thunder, and we said that's a problem. If prior recognized, the Rammelko was useful, or used Rammel, to treat hypertension, and you would not wish the hypertension is one of several things that people treat, and we have to be familiar with that. You know, I would be slightly within your mind, I'm not sure why, in the absence of excluding the huge hypertension, you can survive an inherent hypertension, because in this sense of patients that have hypertension, some of them are physicians that you're a hybridsist stroke, and there is a set of patients that have hypertension, many of them are not really at that time, that stroke is a few some risks around the economic development, the risk of kidney failure, or a heart attack, and for those patients that are in a state-hate, one of those costs dropped, for that in that same set of hybrids and patients, there is a subset that is particularly that risk stroke, that risk stroke, and for a smoker that this area is saying, because you don't just have hypertension, also the smoke, you have for high, in your stroke, therefore you're not going to give you. You don't need to go ahead, but if you look back, you look back, but I was a boy fond, and I thought you could be in my first question, that hypertension is wrecking time, and if we agree, is you're right back to the stroke. I am not saying that hypertension is only a factor for smokers, but not for a pound
. So the hypertension is one of the risk factors for stroke. If you look at the, in an event, in fact, eating a lot is your risk factor for stroke. The four of us sitting here today, we don't have hypertension. I can drop down the stroke. Why is it your time to recover that? Well, no, because we're not, because we're not, we're not the doctors and say, Mr. Holmier is the stroke
. So having not been to a point out is having not only different. What were that? I don't know. How is the difference of the stroke? How do you say they haven't done the clinical trials, but you didn't know that the overalls is very, very much, not in the trial. They're very sure. Yes. And I hope this is a very lucky idea
. What hope is, what are the different, what are the different, what are the different, what are the different. Because they come with a different, but the cost of the compilation is one of the cost of the cancer. And that's so, why is this exactly the same? Could the hope people have gotten that, based on the prior work practice that you could live on a common cancer, just as you couldn't? Yes, they could. And in the morning, I'm going to not be interested, but sorry if they based on that reference, could have gotten that from the same thing? Because one time, remember a cancer colored pain on the walls in America. Hopefully the same, apparently, we're taking one to pull that one brain pain on the walls. We don't think that there's not a difference
. The bulk didn't disclose anything but the plans didn't disclose any activity that was apparently here to the stroke. Yes, yes. Does this kind of further answer? Yes. Is there any story to have a structural reduction in practice that would bring the new levels together? Yes. That's all I can do. If you want to say 10 minutes of action, you can continue to talk or say those. Oh, my God. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. O'Brien
. Oh, my God. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. O'Brien. I think it is clear at this point that the worries might suffer this very very much from the two patients who are at this, that they're going to get the need of a three-year-referential stroke. And that brain recoverable is impacted in the search for patients with hypertension, which is a risk factor for stroke. So those patients were in fact, the diagnosis didn't need to be such a thing. And that treatment, when getting to those patients, it's been here at the interest rate. So I think that's certainly indeed a stroke issue. Well, at least, and that was minimally the patient's post-doubt, is on the side
. I think it is clear at this point that the worries might suffer this very very much from the two patients who are at this, that they're going to get the need of a three-year-referential stroke. And that brain recoverable is impacted in the search for patients with hypertension, which is a risk factor for stroke. So those patients were in fact, the diagnosis didn't need to be such a thing. And that treatment, when getting to those patients, it's been here at the interest rate. So I think that's certainly indeed a stroke issue. Well, at least, and that was minimally the patient's post-doubt, is on the side. Patient, trust, patient, cancer, post-buildings. That's for our drug. It needs to be done. That's not great. There was no description of the treatment patients, the wind stroke, or likely to stop. Well, actually, one of the factors for our medical specialists was that patients had suffered a pretty good
. Patient, trust, patient, cancer, post-buildings. That's for our drug. It needs to be done. That's not great. There was no description of the treatment patients, the wind stroke, or likely to stop. Well, actually, one of the factors for our medical specialists was that patients had suffered a pretty good. You know, I'll explain, it was often done in the parents here. Well, not in this patient. Especially in that particular particular. But those studies did affect death rate. Some of the 9,500, 21 patients that had selected, were selected because they previously had stroke. And all of those patients were given at least seven, 10 days worth of blood in the room during the lung in the face
. You know, I'll explain, it was often done in the parents here. Well, not in this patient. Especially in that particular particular. But those studies did affect death rate. Some of the 9,500, 21 patients that had selected, were selected because they previously had stroke. And all of those patients were given at least seven, 10 days worth of blood in the room during the lung in the face. The 1% of these 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, increase, if you want, this is the amount of hours, but hope for those days that all 9,000,000, 5,000,000,000,000 patients have been randomized as a date that was published in that randomization. All those patients started taking the way they were programmed, just never even had. At that rate, they were in the stroke of tolerance throughout the two-per-media stroke. They did end up at the time of the post-publish, they started getting it over way forward, at least a month for all 9,000, time with the work of patients, I take it to be, some of them were clear from hope that, now it will start in January before the articles published, some of them have started months before, so some of them have been given the possibly correct period of the album, they've been getting from to determine for three extra months, for at least one month, as it's the time of the second week's album. And where is the best state of the album? It's a pain in the throat. If that's true, then you know, you know, you need to, you need to enter into the, enter into the, for they would, to be clearly recognized that it was effective for doing that again
. The 1% of these 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, increase, if you want, this is the amount of hours, but hope for those days that all 9,000,000, 5,000,000,000,000 patients have been randomized as a date that was published in that randomization. All those patients started taking the way they were programmed, just never even had. At that rate, they were in the stroke of tolerance throughout the two-per-media stroke. They did end up at the time of the post-publish, they started getting it over way forward, at least a month for all 9,000, time with the work of patients, I take it to be, some of them were clear from hope that, now it will start in January before the articles published, some of them have started months before, so some of them have been given the possibly correct period of the album, they've been getting from to determine for three extra months, for at least one month, as it's the time of the second week's album. And where is the best state of the album? It's a pain in the throat. If that's true, then you know, you know, you need to, you need to enter into the, enter into the, for they would, to be clearly recognized that it was effective for doing that again. And so, it's not clear at the time that this first publication was published that was enabled for doing that, because it didn't know whether or not the layer of the publication, which we prefer to record, we take what there was a long, there was a long, fast, where it will read the fact that it is right or wrong. It's not a prior art, but in this course, the decision of RISM IA said, for determining the able of what you look at, and the record that is not prior to show whether it required a precedent. Or the time that they did not suddenly subsequent post-reference from the enabled process, the assignment is, the description of the invention of these comparative purposes. We're showing that it in fact worked in effort that when the post-interference or the post-patient form is certain problem, the big thing where it can't be. The post-interference, the minimum post-study colliders were not aware of what they were doing for the early, the exact effect of the post-interference. So I'm going to start with the tabloid, or for the limitation of that, it's not an appearance solution
. And so, it's not clear at the time that this first publication was published that was enabled for doing that, because it didn't know whether or not the layer of the publication, which we prefer to record, we take what there was a long, there was a long, fast, where it will read the fact that it is right or wrong. It's not a prior art, but in this course, the decision of RISM IA said, for determining the able of what you look at, and the record that is not prior to show whether it required a precedent. Or the time that they did not suddenly subsequent post-reference from the enabled process, the assignment is, the description of the invention of these comparative purposes. We're showing that it in fact worked in effort that when the post-interference or the post-patient form is certain problem, the big thing where it can't be. The post-interference, the minimum post-study colliders were not aware of what they were doing for the early, the exact effect of the post-interference. So I'm going to start with the tabloid, or for the limitation of that, it's not an appearance solution. That's what you did not at the time, the other side filed this application. It's been no conclusions reached that the two sessions, that in this, wasn't given it in the name, at least that time, simply an invitation to investigate. Well, with respect, I don't think it was an invitation to investigate it. It was saying, we are investigating, our investigation has begun. We're telling you our results in a few years, and that's what this course is, we've been with Bristol Myers, and it was the first round that it back in fact, apparently it's a support unit. You don't recognize the result at the time that you're making this disclosure
. That's what you did not at the time, the other side filed this application. It's been no conclusions reached that the two sessions, that in this, wasn't given it in the name, at least that time, simply an invitation to investigate. Well, with respect, I don't think it was an invitation to investigate it. It was saying, we are investigating, our investigation has begun. We're telling you our results in a few years, and that's what this course is, we've been with Bristol Myers, and it was the first round that it back in fact, apparently it's a support unit. You don't recognize the result at the time that you're making this disclosure. You are in the United States of the world and you're doing this for this purpose, and we'll let you know if it works. If it does work, it's fine. Then it will be in here, it's just a support unit. It's on camera itself, and it's on, yeah. No, you're a tremendous service source. It's a really special issue
. You are in the United States of the world and you're doing this for this purpose, and we'll let you know if it works. If it does work, it's fine. Then it will be in here, it's just a support unit. It's on camera itself, and it's on, yeah. No, you're a tremendous service source. It's a really special issue. I'll say a few questions. I'll give you a little bit of a thought. You all right? Well, I'll give you a little thought. I'll give you a little thought. Just do what you have to tell me. My friends have a lot of studies in application, both in the media, both in the control of the channel, and I also think of the, because when you said they are in the fruit, in case, yes, so yes, necessarily they want to cut stuff, yes, and then all I did was to improve the pain and forget, because you proved enough that the application had to be done about two and a half years ago
. The examiner raised this whole question and he wrote, and he said, I'm looking for a bunch of works in my back. Did they include the studies that have come from the modern application? For that free or two, yes. I believe this study is worth needed, because it's only for the application. Now, this study's not completed by the time we file, or priority file in the next study is completed. As it was, you were sort of filed over one three seven weeks, but all that. There's no correct that some of the studies are rarely continued by the time that the application had a relationship, it's so much, almost identical, because we have to, we have to, of course, we have to, the file application, would we have to, to complete the idea, more correct, but then it becomes that thought, because we were shown on the ground, and they answered, we were excited, and they could list your own studies, what part? Um, I hope that the no idea, if there's study sort of, which way there's study sort of going to be dealt, they say, we're going to check for whether we prevent or destroy a strong heart attack, and have it at the laundry, it's 14 different times, depression, and also the age, or what's one of her things are going to look for, if we give a personal problem, so they become more or less hostile, then no idea, I mean, these things, are not already that important, are the electric contrast, kind of went down, and I should look at this study, with that kind of, how these products work, you know, the application itself, and they said, we've done that a role, with a few, we've done that a lot, based on this, understand this study, with that kind of, if we make a fair amount of confidence, and it's predicted, we'll have a good result in that. The difference is, the whole code, or in that case, in fact, in a very similar idea, is just the whole code for those things, but your fear is small, exactly what you basically agree, that the code for cost, that is the percentage, of the amount of confidence, and application, I'm not sure what you said in question, and you know, you agree, that you can't distinguish between the code, and the amount of the application, in terms of, I guess, how do you say the point? So, if it's correct, well, we have, we have, that it's, I'll be a small, human, human, what's, not what's in the application, that's not all of our data, but we included data from, and it's, you put both at times, that is the difference, which, which, you can hear in the rough, the difference between, we're fine with, we're not sure, so dollars just for pay, we're here, required minutes, yo