<Does it ring true that the projected survival is higher in the trial that allows symptomatic patients (9902b) than in the trials that were restricted to asymptomatic patients?>
Good. Now you are saying something concrete that we can discuss. Your inference of wrongdoing was based on your inherent dislike of DNDN management and the two facts that you stated: (1) the slide showing the median survival time in 9902b is better than that in 9901 and (2) the extension of 9902b to include mild pain.
But is that all that is known about the data? Here are a few more for you to ponder: (1) about 100 early 9902b patients had GS<=7, (2) those were found to be somewhat healthier than D9901 per the Provost data, (3) about 60% of patients in 9901 and 9902a were GS<=7, and (4) extension to include mild pain does not exclude no pain. And, you really want to stretch it, think about the number of bone mets for somewhat healthier patients and the fact that the Halabi nomogram does not account for it.
Now factor those into your inference to see if it still holds? If you have not done so, then, IMO, your inference is lacking. But as IO pointed out, you don't really need to work through this mildly challenging brain teaser. DNDN does not need the legal risk as they surely will be liable if they were found lying to promote stock price (as you aptly pointed out) when the data come out at trial end. The point here is that there is enough objective data to work with that you don't need a faith-based reasoning such as trusting Novartis or distrusting Dendreon management.
AI
