sentiment_stocks Saturday, 06/15/19 10:31:09 AM Re: flipper44 post# 233304 Post # of 237124 I’m in San Francisco on a quick trip, and so only just now had a chance to view the video... listen at the 20 minute mark. She indicates that with the first iteration of the trial, the “vanguard group” (she doesn’t call it that, but we have referred to that group of 38 as that), those enrolled from 2007/08 to 2010, had very few placebo patients. LL indicates that when the trial rebooted around 2010, and eventually became a P3 trial, it was at this time forward that the trial was fully randomized. At least that’s how I heard it. My initial inclination is to think could it have been then with the original 38 that the imbalance in the 2:1 randomization came from? If there were about 31 treatment in that group of 38, and only 7 who were control, that might account for the disparity. This is not what I’d have initially thought, but her statement around the 20 minute mark seems pretty to rather clearly point to that possibility. Curious to know other’s interpretation of her comment in this section.