Hey... so double blind means that the patient doesn't know if they are getting the drug, nor does the researcher/doc In The Field physically evaluating that person, removing the bias that the person doing the testing and data Collection. That does not mean that the Company is blinded to the results or to the ongoing data collection results (generally, nor could I imagine a situation where they would want to be. An exception would be if a company was partnered with a major health researcher that was given the opp to do their own thing with their drug trial, and there was a disconnect or unsmooth operating procedure). A common sense illustration of companies having their ongoing data would be the fact that some drug trials are terminated early due to side effects, deaths, failures. There is not some independent company that is given authority to collect data, and sense for problems, and notify a company with problems. The responsibility falls on the company to assess the ongoing safety and tolerability of their drug trial, and to act to halt the trial or intervene if safety problems resolve. So again, the physician or tech who is performing the dxa scans of these patients, and the physician reading the results, both blinded. If they are contracting with an independent data collection firm to collect the data (which is less relevant here), than they are likely not blinded (and companies like that are usually used for company convenience or sometimes ethical angles). But again, the company is not blinded. Another illustration relevant to our own company. The lipid trial they are running- they asked to lower the threshold of the ?LDL to recruit better. This would have been done in conjunction with reviewing the ongoing data, seeing the results of the patients who were screened and declined, etc. Interim data analyses are the name of the game. Companies alter dosing regimens (with FDA approval, keep in mind) sometimes, enroll more patients than anticipated originally to change the powering of the study, etc, based on ongoing evaluation of the numbers. A rhetorical question that will illustrate my answer and clear up confusion. How did Viking know that they were able to stop with only ?108 patients. Stopping the study prior to full enrollment essentially proves (in my mind at least, beyond a reasonable doubt (my opinion, not science fact)) that data analyses were completed, more than just my knowing how this works. I would encourage you to read more in detail on how clinical trials work and are overseen. Companies spend millions on these, they would rarely ever consent to just receive some envelope with a data analysis at the end of their trial, and give some team of paid researchers, typically working on their dime, the liberty of unrestricted time at the wheel juggling the fate of their baby. I respect your investment, 33K shares is no joke, so I felt it reasonable to give you an honest answer. I'm some sort of medical something or other (in case you can't guess), so I gamble on what I know best, medical stuff, and I stick to mainly that, with few exceptions. Having 33K+ to spend on this stuff, I think you made a decent bet on this company. A lot of this is luck, even with higher levels of knowledge, but I would strongly urge you to read up on how these wacky trials are run... it's a big game, and understanding the game will help you to reduce the risk inherent to this line of investing. Having 33K+ to put into this company, you clearly are good at something. You know many things much better than I ever will. Exploit those strengths. These trials scare the crap out of me, and they are my bread and butter. I am here because it's all I know, that's all. And I like Viking (clearly) lol. Best of luck friend
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
