Are you suggesting that the concentration values by dose in the two charts should match even though one is for 24 hours and the other is for 15 days? It's the only way his assertion of a fraudulent chart makes any sense. Why wouldn't he spell it out in one more quick sentence?
Because, you're right, he changes nothing; just juxtaposes those two charts. Then he mentions unspecified calculations - and parenthetically, MW, which seems meaningless in this context (if the "calculations" are just eyeballing the charts, what does MW have to do with anything)- to say that troughs are being compared to maxima. You could do that, but the maxima are also there for all the drugs for you comparative pleasure. In the 15 day chart, the 1202 troughs and maxima aren't even that far apart, particularly at the higher doses. And only at the highest dose do we see Cmax higher than Idelasib's.
So I ask again, where is the fraud? What's the issue, aside from potency in humans (given nanomolar potency in vitro, which seemed neck and neck with Idelasib's)? Which is being addressed by increasing exposure, and the jury's still out. It's fine to be concerned about that, but I'm not seeing the alleged fraud at all. Are you?
Regards, RockRat
