Yes, I understand it's primarily a health concern. I just wonder if, just like for the Tour De France, it also affects stamina. I don't intend to imply that it would a silver lining, I'm merely trying to test my understanding of some biological mechanism.
He is an epidemiologist.
I would have expected haematologists, chemical pathologists, cytopathologists, clinical biochemists, histopathologists and other relevant specialists on the board.
At the moment, there is just a trophy, retired epidemiologist.
A number of paleoanthropologists are skeptical of the claims.
They say that the bones look like H.erectus and that some of the more bizarre claims sound "tailored for the media"
You almost always want to sell the portfolio firm after three to five years. It is therefore in the PE firm's interests to have the firm healthy and thriving. The idea is very definitely not to cripple or harm the portfolio firm.
For an excellent example of best practice look at what Blackstone have done with the Hilton Group, Wolfskin, Merlin Entertainments ( owner of Legoland, Madame Tussaud's, London Eye ), the Bujagali Hydropower Project in Uganda or the Moser Baer Projects in India.
Well it seems that in this case PE firms have managed to cripple the firm and then sell it. Strangely the details of that sale are not discussed in the article.
He was far more effective and far more successful than Machiavelli.
He selected Chandragupta to destroy the Nanda dynasty and used him to create the Maurya empire. The Mauryas ruled the largest empire ever in the Indian subcontinent. Ashoka, the third to rule the empire was responsible for the global transmission of Buddhism.
He was also far more vindictive than Machiavelli.
"It is also told that once, the thorns of a bush hurt Chankya's feet while he was passing through a forest. The wily Brahmin was cut to the quick, and wanted revenge. He got his revenge by pouring sugar syrup into the roots of the bush, thus ensuring that the ants ate up the root and destroyed the bush."
His main philosophy was "A debt should be paid off till the last penny; An enemy should be destroyed without a trace".
> He was also far more vindictive than Machiavelli.
> "It is also told that once, the thorns of a bush hurt Chankya's feet while he was passing through a forest. The wily Brahmin was cut to the quick, and wanted revenge. He got his revenge by pouring sugar syrup into the roots of the bush, thus ensuring that the ants ate up the root and destroyed the bush."
This seems wrongly interpreted on two levels. Processing sugarcane, while first occurring in India, happened about six centuries later [0]. That's hardly important, just that this legend, as people also tell it with milk[1], makes much more sense, allegorically.
As a metaphor, considering that it was while he did this that Chandragupta first saw Chanakya, and that together they united a bountiful, resilient people to overthrow a tyrant, we start to see his character. This legend also seems to show how forces of Nature bring people together in mystical ways that work to fix mistakes, ie, Chanakya avenging his father's murder by an extortionist king[2] with help from noble kings.
"In the last 20 years, only two new drugs have been approved that were specifically developed to treat children with cancer." You showed oncology which has ZERO impact on children since they are not approved for children and hence illegal for doctors to use for children. I lived this life man.
SORRY BUT WHAT A JERK! Misrepresenting facts does nobody any good but makes you a jerk. 100% true statement 3 drugs in 20 years have been approved by the FDA for Pediatric Cancer!
This isn't some made up make believe this is the truth kids get the RAW end of the stick in cancer research. My son died on a bone cancer that quite possibly has more research money spent on curing the disease for dogs than finding a cure for children.
Those 22 ontological drugs are not PEDIATRIC. They don't help PEDIATRIC cancer patients. You misrepresented the truth so fast and hard to your notion that what I said was untrue. The sad fact is it would take less time to find a drug for children and than use on adults. If it comes from adults the research actually has to start from scratch due to the fast growing bodies of children and very few if any have any possible benifit for children.
