Squeak squeak: what about the mice?
Mesdames et messieurs: OK Bertolino has said that he based his decision to join the ctix bandwagon based on data from a slide from the presentation to a conf in Jan of this year, prev referred to in Sept this year, and prior to that.
This is the slide where 67.9 ITT pts go from moderate disease(score #3) to 25 %: source Biotech showcase 1/9/17 page 11, the very pivotal page.
Bertolino is an MD PhD, right? So what is he smoking?
Look at the numbers- you CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT rely on percentages when total numbers are so small, right? Can we agree on this? So when you report percentages of pts responding, when you are discussing the results of a few people whose skin condition you can count ON ONE HAND, can you generalize with percentages? Of course you cannot.
ok data from CTIX PR 9/19/2016 : recent P trial, 2a as it turns out: Placebo (no P) 30 pts: 3/18(PP) are responders and 4/30 (ITT) respond. 200mg dose 7/20 (PP) respond and 7/27 (ITT)do ok .
They took out one responder from placebo--WHY!!?? That would have made results close, exclusion on what basis? BioShowcase data , page 11
So what do we see? We see a percentage trend that is an emperor with NO CLOTHES because the numbers are too small. 7 people get better while 3- or is it 4- got better in placebo??!!? What if the numbers are off by 1 or 2? What happened to that 4th responder from placebo- there is no explanation . They are quoting these big percentage changes based on 3 or 4 people!!!! It just does not cut it.
Bertolino signed on to CTIX because of 3 or 4 more responders- at the very most!!- out of 10 with good results?
You gotta be kidding me.
He must know something else. He better know something else.
All this over the top hoopla over CTIX may or may not prove ot, but THE NUMBERS ARE TOO SMALL TO RELY ON if you are paying any attention.
Nota bene folks: 505 advantage is based on abacavir - and Bertolino just told us that abacavir is not the active agent!!!?! Is anyone paying attn to this?
OK, taking a deep breath, and that is most certainly in order if one wishes to peruse the almost baseless trial data favoring Prurisol, and admit that the antiinflammatory platform for Brilacidin is promising. Well thank goodness because the rest of the pipeline is going nowhere fast.
Oh yes- squeak squeak.
what about the pretty pictures in the mice who did so well with Prurisol? Can we just put up those slides again. Sure why not, if it makes you feel better....
AI
