InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 5690
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/09/2012

Re: dwiggd post# 35415

Monday, 06/01/2015 12:56:47 PM

Monday, June 01, 2015 12:56:47 PM

Post# of 708448

I already acknowledged the 3month/6 month thing, and that I was using clinicaltrials.gov, which still shows 3. But that doesn't answer my fundamental argument, which is that the numbers do not allow for strict chronological enrollment of method A before B (the lack of gaps in the waterfall during the slow enrollment period).-dwiggd



Yes they do, and this is what you are all missing.

9 of the 11 that died were all Method A. Almost all of the patients that died were enrolled under inferior criteria (mostly 2-6 months OS is obviously not the "> 6 months/ 500 mm3 lymph count" crit). Therefore the Method A "cohort" survival rates were negatively impacted by the weaker initial criteria. When combined with the obvious long tail survivors that were enrolled first and given Method A (see student abstract), that de facto means most or all Method B were enrolled later, and so most fall under the superior crit.

That confounds any comparison.

I'd offer you advice, but I just don't care about your money, unless you give me money to care about your money. I might even be tricking you with the above post...

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News