AI
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:59:35 PM
Wouldn’t you expect UA to roughly track non-fatal MI? Doesn’t sound like you’re exactly going out on a limb here 
Ahh, a challenge -g-
You say it should track MI. But Feurstein says it should track revasc since the hard endpoint data was a fluke and so there is no reason to suppose there is any effect in either UA or revasc.
Who to believe? I postulate neither - since UA is actually a poorly defined condition. Unlike MI it doesn't have hard markers and thus is made up of a hodgepodge of mild MI patients (who would benefit from 1067) and first time Stable Angina patients.
We'll see.
Ahh, a challenge -g-
You say it should track MI. But Feurstein says it should track revasc since the hard endpoint data was a fluke and so there is no reason to suppose there is any effect in either UA or revasc.
Who to believe? I postulate neither - since UA is actually a poorly defined condition. Unlike MI it doesn't have hard markers and thus is made up of a hodgepodge of mild MI patients (who would benefit from 1067) and first time Stable Angina patients.
We'll see.
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
