"Then again you LR failed to say these facts- "certain patient subgroups did show treatment benefits of Brilacidin for that primary endpoint. For example, patients treated early from onset of symptoms achieved sustained recovery more quickly (Brilacidin 5-dose group vs pooled placebo, p=0.03)."
I did. And I was about to apologize when I saw that SS had posted a very relevant explanation that I hadn't even considered. I'll put it into my own words but first I wanted to remind you that neither I nor any other participant here has the OBLIGATION to provide the same fulsome scientific details that the authors of that paper had. I only feel an obligation to the truth....no more, no less. I'll remind you that my initial complaint related to the description of the paper as "news" which obviously was not true. It reported pre-clinical results to the neglect of the known results of the subsequently conducted clinical trial.
I believe this was SS's point:
The parenthesized phrase in the highlighted quote that you felt I should have included in my post says that when "patients treated early from onset of symptoms achieved sustained recovery more quickly" the Company and the biostatistics partners it used to explore the data compared a subgroup that included patients treated with 5 doses of Brilacidin with the TOTAL group of BOTH the 3 and 5 day patients who received the placebo. SS said that that was "essentially scientific fraud" and it certainly was dirty pool....a totally invalid comparison.
So while that wasn't my reason for not including that language from the press release in my post, it definitely would have been a good one.
It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.
......W. C. Fields
