>..the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case... Which is exactly what I took "up to 63%" to mean. I don't see that as misleading. If

>..the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case... Which is exactly what I took "up to 63%" to mean. I don't see that as misleading. If a drug administration company was listing off the side effects of a new over-the-counter drug and mentioned fatality rates we're on average, 2%, but failed to mention that the worst-case scenarios (where the patients were Hispanic females over the age 35) had a 80% fatality rate, would you also consider that misleading? Of course you would. So why is citing the extremes of a positive considered misleading, while citing extremes of a negative is almost expected?