Wait wait wait.

I'm just going to suspend my disbelief and answer this assuming 100% honesty on your part.

You're advocating to maintain the system in a way that will impact YOU negatively, correct? You want to maintain the inequality of the current system because... You look at those who have all the economic advantages, and sympathize with their minor setbacks? As opposed to the massive crisis of people who NO LONGER HAVE HOMES as the practice of landlording forces more and more people onto the street?

MAN, your head must be a WILD place to be.

I have 0 rental properties. You dont have to be a landlord to see individuals getting screwed after the covid rental blocks.

Only 2 million dollars a pill

... With a markup of insurance on the purchase price, more expensive interest rates, and strict restraint based on credit score that can be made inaccessible to the average consumer for a multitude of reasons beyond their control. All this to say, a high barrier to entry.

...Man, you're REALLY struggling with the concept huh?

This must be frustrating, you keep trying to land zingers, only to have the rug pulled out from under your argument, repeatedly.

The government provides federally backed loans with 3.5% down. Thanks for confirming your real estate knowledge base.

My wife and I have a similar problem sourcing shoes for our son. He wears sizd 19 FFFF at present. We can find them, but it's not easy.

Duh!!

>Lol alright man whatever you say. You obviously don't see the risk even though its screwing individuals over. Keep complaining about the system while nothing will happen because your frustration is directed at the wrong thing. And yeah lets have local governments and NGOs own land, I'm sure you've thoroughly researched market economies to know that would surely work.

I'm saying we should change the system that clearly isn't meeting the needs of society. As in, something new. You need to try to get data.

You seem to advocating for a "got mine, fuck you" approach, afraid to try a different system because it might have some possible negative impact for you, in spite of the fact it could tremendously help others. Which, you're free to do. And I'm free to point out that's selfish as fuck.

Glad to see you've run out of any logical rebuttal though. Because there really isn't one that doesn't make one sound selfish.

I would surely forget if someone else offers more money.

What does it take to get to work with animals like that?

Lol alright man whatever you say. You obviously don't see the risk even though its screwing individuals over. Keep complaining about the system while nothing will happen because your frustration is directed at the wrong thing. And yeah lets have local governments and NGOs own land, I'm sure you've thoroughly researched market economies to know that would surely work.

well it won't be in Europe, but when the pill gets here it 100% will not be affordable.

Defensive tackle? Come on coach, I don’t care how slow he is. This is your tight end.

I think this is gonna be my child, off the charts for everything and his feet are huuuuuuuuge

[removed]

>I'm not talking about the banks, I'm talking about individual landlords who take the risk.

You said lender. The landlord is the owner. Man you're on a roll today.

Also, Investment? Risk? My goodness what a combination! No investment has ever had risk before. /s

>You're talking as if landlords are just handed properties out of thin air, they earned their assets.

Incorrect. They earned the DOWN-PAYMENT of that asset.

Then the landlord claimed "FIRST" on the property in question, and arrange to have their tenant pay the remaining balance of the property. Often gaining passive income monthly as a result.

The flaws in such a system are obvious. Assuming the landlord makes 0 profit on either the sale or monthly costs, they are able to purchase assets on a 5 to 1 advantage compared to non-landlords, assuming a down-payment of 20%. 20% five times adds to 100%, you see.

Mix in HELOCs and the fact that land does in fact appreciate over time... It's supremely rigged in favor of those who have existing capital. The landlording of single family homes is right behind oil barrens and war-profiteers in making the world a worse place to their own enrichment.

Even done on a high density scale (low and high rise apartments), it should be much more heavily regulated, and ideally run at a net zero by municipal governments or nonprofit NGOs.

And thereby became wealthy. Just because the initial capital was earner does not change the position they hold.

Owning multiple properties very easily puts someone in the top of wealth. There are wealthier individuals sure, but there are ~10 million Americans that own income property. There are 330 million Americans. That should give you an idea how exclusive an income property is to the wealthy.

[removed]

And then he’s like fsck, I was gonna die on the beach. Now I’m on a plane back to New Mexico.

[removed]

I read the actual paper.

It achieved complete remission with hematopoietic recovery in 18 of 60 (30%) patients, and remission without hematopoietic recovery (so still likely need a bone marrow transplant) in another 5 of 60 (8%), and "morphological leukemia free state" (leukemia treated, but not cured?) in 9 of 60 (15%). So very positive results in 32 of 60 (53%).

There was no response in 19 of 60 (32%), worsened disease in 7 of 60 (12%), and 2 of 60 (3%) were not reported on.

This drug only works on KMT2Ar and NPM1 variants of leukemia, which make up about 10% and 30% of all leukemias, respectively.

The rate of complete remission for the KMT2Ar is normally 9% with usual treatment, but 33% with the drug in this trial.

The results for survival time were written in a slightly confusing way, but I think the median survival time was 7 months for all patients regardless of remission status. I have no idea why they didn't split up the survival curves between those in remission vs those not in remission.

TLDR: Incremental improvements that might help increase remission rates in some leukemia patients with 2 specific gene mutations comprising 40% of leukemia cases, but it's not a miracle drug.

[deleted]

Making a lot of assumptions on the wealth of land lords. Some are just working people who saved for a decade to buy an investment property.

I'm not talking about the banks, I'm talking about individual landlords who take the risk. You're talking as if landlords are just handed properties out of thin air, they earned their assets.

^brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt