Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[sunspotter]

"Please tell me if you also consider the ph1 for Imbruvica a failure?"

I do so wish posts would not attribute things to me that I didn't say, and then imply I am wrong by contradicting something I didn't say.

Let's try a little logical syllogism and see if that helps.

(For those unfamiliar with this Ancient Greek contribution to Logic, here's a primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)

One poster asserted that "The primary outcome was to establish MTD." referring to the Kevetrin Phase I study.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118904442

Let's call that Proposition A.

I then concluded that if that were the case, then "In which case, as I understand the results, they failed."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118904442

This has led to a number of posts that seemed to miss the point of what I actually said entirely.

I realise my mistake was not to articulate and post my own proposition - let's call that Proposition B - that led me to the inevitable conclusion that if the original poster was right (please note: not me - the original poster) then the study had failed.

I will now rectify this using the syllogistic approach to which I referred earlier:

Proposition A: The purpose (primary outcome) of the study was to determine the MTD. (BK's contention)

Proposition B: A clinical study that does not achieve its primary outcome or endpoint has failed. (My contention.)

Conclusion: As the MTD was not determined, the study failed.

I do hope that's clearer.

If anyone disagrees with proposition A, then I suggest they address themselves to the poster who proposed that rather than to me, as they have done so far:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118903730

If anyone disagrees with Proposition B, then I would refer them to any entry level discussion of the way that prospective clinical studies are conducted.

Thanks!