12-22-2022, 02:33 PM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordDaily/status/1605717928069980160?s=20&t=-NS1CAy6GJRvfmTFBA-09A[/tweet]
Oh dear.
BC
Oh dear.
BC
Yikes
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordDaily/status/1605717928069980160?s=20&t=-NS1CAy6GJRvfmTFBA-09A[/tweet]
Oh dear.
BC
Oh dear.
BC
Stanford and fraud word association ticking way way up the past few years, probably at a zenith now with the MTL business.
Avatar in 2009 had Sigourney's alien character wearing a Stanford shirt, back then Stanford was a convenient shorthand for smart and cool in a laid back way. One of the hit shows of today, White Lotus, features a character who is a Stanford graduate, in a less sympathetic light. I suspect the pop culture may continue to reflect a changed view of Stanford.
Elizabeth Holmes and SV grifters in general, MTL, SBF's prof parents, now this guy. Bad streak.
Avatar in 2009 had Sigourney's alien character wearing a Stanford shirt, back then Stanford was a convenient shorthand for smart and cool in a laid back way. One of the hit shows of today, White Lotus, features a character who is a Stanford graduate, in a less sympathetic light. I suspect the pop culture may continue to reflect a changed view of Stanford.
Elizabeth Holmes and SV grifters in general, MTL, SBF's prof parents, now this guy. Bad streak.
Stanford and fraud word association ticking way way up the past few years, probably at a zenith now with the MTL business.
Avatar in 2009 had Sigourney's alien character wearing a Stanford shirt, back then Stanford was a convenient shorthand for smart and cool in a laid back way. One of the hit shows of today, White Lotus, features a character who is a Stanford graduate, in a less sympathetic light. I suspect the pop culture may continue to reflect a changed view of Stanford.
Elizabeth Holmes and SV grifters in general, MTL, SBF's prof parents, now this guy. Bad streak.
Avatar in 2009 had Sigourney's alien character wearing a Stanford shirt, back then Stanford was a convenient shorthand for smart and cool in a laid back way. One of the hit shows of today, White Lotus, features a character who is a Stanford graduate, in a less sympathetic light. I suspect the pop culture may continue to reflect a changed view of Stanford.
Elizabeth Holmes and SV grifters in general, MTL, SBF's prof parents, now this guy. Bad streak.
12-23-2022, 11:47 AM
This is the “Cohen” of the seminal Cohen-Boyer recombinant DNA patent. The patent had, at least as of 20 years ago, made more money (for Stanford and UCSF) than any other patent licensed by an American university.
Cohen is 87. That would have made him 81 when the company in question was founded.
Cohen is 87. That would have made him 81 when the company in question was founded.
This is the “Cohen” of the seminal Cohen-Boyer recombinant DNA patent. The patent had, at least as of 20 years ago, made more money (for Stanford and UCSF) than any other patent licensed by an American university.
Cohen is 87. That would have made him 81 when the company in question was founded.
Cohen is 87. That would have made him 81 when the company in question was founded.
12-23-2022, 12:22 PM
The actual statement of decision from the court, which is available for download in the Stanford Daily article linked above, is not as damning as the article makes it sound. If you parse the article, some of the most serious allegations against Cohen are from characterizations by the plaintiff's lawyer, not from the court's statement of decision. The headline of the article talks about a "fraud" case, but looking purely at the statement of decision, the court found for the plaintiffs on "negligent misrepresentation," and the court found in Cohen's favor on the fraud claim. The allegation is that the drug was banned in 1976 when it was used as a skin treatment because the side effects included death and other severe harm, not that anyone suffered physical harm as a result of any trials of the drug by Cohen's company. The court found that the defendants shared information about the 1976 FDA with others, possibly including the plaintiff's own father, and that the plaintiffs knew that the drug had been determined to be toxic, but not the full context of the FDA's decision in 1976. The lead plaintiff also was the president of the company making the drug, so presumably he gained access to all the material information prior to the company's dissolution, but the court found that the plaintiffs weren't told the information prior to their investment. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Cohen was trying to get the FDA to reverse its 1976 decision in the context of using the drug to treat Huntington's Disease (which is severe and generally deadly after a number of years) even though the drug was banned in the context of use as a skin treatment. The fact that the court ruled against him on negligent misrepresentation is very unflattering, but in my view, the article is way over the top in the way it portrays Cohen's conduct.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
The actual statement of decision from the court, which is available for download in the Stanford Daily article linked above, is not as damning as the article makes it sound. If you parse the article, some of the most serious allegations against Cohen are from characterizations by the plaintiff's lawyer, not from the court's statement of decision. The headline of the article talks about a "fraud" case, but looking purely at the statement of decision, the court found for the plaintiffs on "negligent misrepresentation," and the court found in Cohen's favor on the fraud claim. The allegation is that the drug was banned in 1976 when it was used as a skin treatment because the side effects included death and other severe harm, not that anyone suffered physical harm as a result of any trials of the drug by Cohen's company. The court found that the defendants shared information about the 1976 FDA with others, possibly including the plaintiff's own father, and that the plaintiffs knew that the drug had been determined to be toxic, but not the full context of the FDA's decision in 1976. The lead plaintiff also was the president of the company making the drug, so presumably he gained access to all the material information prior to the company's dissolution, but the court found that the plaintiffs weren't told the information prior to their investment. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Cohen was trying to get the FDA to reverse its 1976 decision in the context of using the drug to treat Huntington's Disease (which is severe and generally deadly after a number of years) even though the drug was banned in the context of use as a skin treatment. The fact that the court ruled against him on negligent misrepresentation is very unflattering, but in my view, the article is way over the top in the way it portrays Cohen's conduct.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(12-23-2022, 12:52 PM)yvonne Wrote: shanda!
I thought you were the site admin, but now I wonder whether you are my mom. Please tell me you're someone's ima or savta.
P.S. Take a look at my post above on the court's ruling. Honestly, the Stanford Daily's article is borderline defamatory. Sloppy reporting, which is understandable for a college paper, but we still need to keep the quality of the reporting in mind when we read a college paper.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(12-23-2022, 12:52 PM)yvonne Wrote: shanda!
I thought you were the site admin, but now I wonder whether you are my mom. Please tell me you're someone's ima or savta.
P.S. Take a look at my post above on the court's ruling. Honestly, the Stanford Daily's article is borderline defamatory. Sloppy reporting, which is understandable for a college paper, but we still need to keep the quality of the reporting in mind when we read a college paper.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-23-2022, 05:18 PM
Yvonne periodically peppers the conversation with a bit of Yiddish.
BTW, thanks, Trumpcard for going through the actual decision. It’s not a good look either way, but this is less of a bad look.
BC
BTW, thanks, Trumpcard for going through the actual decision. It’s not a good look either way, but this is less of a bad look.
BC
Yvonne periodically peppers the conversation with a bit of Yiddish.
BTW, thanks, Trumpcard for going through the actual decision. It’s not a good look either way, but this is less of a bad look.
BC
BTW, thanks, Trumpcard for going through the actual decision. It’s not a good look either way, but this is less of a bad look.
BC
12-27-2022, 03:52 PM
(12-27-2022, 03:34 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-23-2022, 03:50 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(12-23-2022, 12:52 PM)yvonne Wrote: shanda!
I thought you were the site admin, but now I wonder whether you are my mom. Please tell me you're someone's ima or savta.
That was Yiddish. Shouldn't it be ma or bubbe?
I can abide bubbe or zayde, but I don't think I've ever heard someone use ma or tate en lieu of ima or aba.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(12-27-2022, 03:34 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-23-2022, 03:50 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(12-23-2022, 12:52 PM)yvonne Wrote: shanda!
I thought you were the site admin, but now I wonder whether you are my mom. Please tell me you're someone's ima or savta.
That was Yiddish. Shouldn't it be ma or bubbe?
I can abide bubbe or zayde, but I don't think I've ever heard someone use ma or tate en lieu of ima or aba.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-27-2022, 04:20 PM
Speaking of Yiddish, Stanford, and thread drift, I noticed today that Boichik Bagels (a NY Times fave) has opened in Town and Country Village, so I bought a few to try. They are really good, but $3 a bagel??? Oy vey!
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
Speaking of Yiddish, Stanford, and thread drift, I noticed today that Boichik Bagels (a NY Times fave) has opened in Town and Country Village, so I bought a few to try. They are really good, but $3 a bagel??? Oy vey!
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
12-27-2022, 04:30 PM
(12-27-2022, 04:20 PM)oldalum Wrote: Speaking of Yiddish, Stanford, and thread drift, I noticed today that Boichik Bagels (a NY Times fave) has opened in Town and Country Village, so I bought a few to try. They are really good, but $3 a bagel??? Oy vey!
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
we tried some as well, we'll be staying with House of Bagels....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(12-27-2022, 04:20 PM)oldalum Wrote: Speaking of Yiddish, Stanford, and thread drift, I noticed today that Boichik Bagels (a NY Times fave) has opened in Town and Country Village, so I bought a few to try. They are really good, but $3 a bagel??? Oy vey!
(ok, the tie to Stanford is that the bagel shop is in the spot of the former store of licensed Stanford stuff, and the Stanford signs and symbols are still there on the upper facade of the bagel shop)
we tried some as well, we'll be staying with House of Bagels....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »