>In drug development, you generally get what you pay for.
You are much more knowledgeable than me about that, I can think of some examples when this was not true.
But the real question here: Do you claim that the first Tesm phase III's survival advantage was false?
>The CEO pumped the program shamelessly, even going so far as to say it was virtually a lock to succeed.
When?
>He obfuscated about the trial deign, telling investors on multiple occasions that there was no p-value penalty for multiple data looks. (In fact, the p-value penalties were implicit in the sequential-analysis trial design.)
Of course there is a penalty for the chance of early success.
just like there is a bonus for the chance of early failure.
And the two balances each other, and it is a perfectly fair statement to make that there is no p-value combined.
Or you are suggesting that the company agreed "for free" with a chance of premature failure chance while taking penaly for the chance of multiple success. Now that would be dumb.
In short there is p-penalty when you have multiple chance of success, if it is combined with multiple chance of failure, you can avoid the p-penalty.
When they made the Eximias deal they said the financial and personal resources of Eximias merged with YMI's pipeline. Your characterization is simply inaccurate.
----
I am not crazy about Aeroleaf, and I agree that there is distortion. It is likely a superior product to Actiq though.
AI
