Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater

Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater

Glioblastoma (GBM). GBM is the most Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater and most aggressive brain cancer. It’s highly invasive, which makes complete surgical removal impossible. And because of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), it doesn’t respond to any chemotherapy. The standard-of-care entails multiple rounds of surgery and radiotherapy, yet the five year survival is lower than 5%. Pancreatic cancer (PDAC). PDAC is a notoriously stubborn cancer. The only effective treatment is a very painful and very complex operation called “the Whipple procedure”. However, only 20% of patients are eligible for such operation. And even for those lucky patients, only 20% survived more than five years. For the rest majority of patients, the chance of survival is negligible, because PDAC hardly responds to any form of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The five year survival overall is 6%.

()

Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater,

Best Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater

Bountygate, 2009: Everyone seems to have forgotten about this. Shortly after the season, it came to light that New Orleans Saints` defense had a Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater system going, based on who could deliver the worst hit to an opposing player. The bounty increased depending on which player it was (QBs were prime targets) and the given defensive player would win more money if his hit required the player to leave the game. The Saints went on to win the Super Bowl that year.

()

This statement implies that when someone spends money, the Colorful Ugly Christmas Sweater disappears. However, whenever money is spent, the money still exists in the hands of the recipient of that spending. Then when that person spends that money they received, again, it does not disappear, it is transferred to the recipient of THAT spending etc. At the end of all that spending, at the end of the given time period, the money used will still exist and can be considered as savings, in someone’s pocket. So someone making that argument for the macroeconomy must be talking about something other than spending of money. Perhaps they are talking about wealth. Perhaps they are implying that all that spending depletes wealth.