InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 840
Posts 120576
Boards Moderated 14
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: walk post# 958

Monday, 09/11/2006 2:27:46 PM

Monday, September 11, 2006 2:27:46 PM

Post# of 12660
There’s more intelligence in that one post by BI than in 1,000 posts by the DNDN bulls, IMO.

I argued similarly to BI in a thread a couple of months ago that was started by Ocyan’s contention on InvestorVillage that the FDA can be expected to give a sponsor a “free” implicit 0.05 of p-value for survival even if zero p-value is formally allocated to survival in the trial’s statistical-analysis plan. Clearly, if this were true—i.e., if the FDA routinely gave sponsors 0.05 of free p-value for survival—it would be wasteful for companies to allocate some of the scarce explicit p-value to survival and no clinical trial would do it. The fact that many clinical trials do allocate explicit p-value to survival is evidence that Ocyan’s contention is bogus.

BI is also correct in stating that 9902a was not supportive of 9901, IMO. No one—not even DNDN itself—stated a priori that “supportive” meant a low p-value using Cox regression analysis.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.