BlackDoggie Friday, 11/10/17 11:02:37 AM Re: trding post# 18093 0 Post # of 29091 Actually, it was the opposite. The rationale was that 30 would give statistical significance, but not clinical significance. That's a BS answer, because they would/should have known the number they (FDA) would need up front for either. Something changed in the ask - from one side or the other - in my opinion. And again, the data was still blinded, so there's no way that the FDA looked at the data and decided they needed more.