Clark - There is no doubt that this phenomenon regarding the predictive relationship between trials exists and could be captured by Bayesian statistics at a high level. But beyond that, there is a reasonable explanation of its root cause based on empirical evidence in the article that I mentioned in post 4353.
The problem with Dew is that he only has a superficial understanding of this phenomenon. But, in his usual blowhard mode, he made a big deal of it by giving it a weird and meaningless but important sounding name then wrongly applying it to the Provenge case by simply asserting the relabeling of two phase-3 trials as phase-2. Even after I showed the above article, he did not try to get the meaning of it, instead just stuttering something incomprehensible in his reply.
Dew isn't entirely stupid but he does not know the limit of what he knows. His nose/ego is too big so he often drips by insulting others gratuitously - witness his latest posts on iVillage. It's sad to see him like that as his natural skepticism and large knowledge of biotechs can be a good constructive force. But he discredits himself by not thinking through his assertions and often devolving into childish acts when not receiving the accolades that he assumes or, worse, being questioned.
Those who look to Dew for his opinions should place the correct weighting factor on them with regard to DNDN. My personal weighting function on Dew's opinions on DNDN is near zero at this point.
This is my last post on this thread. Back to paper writing.
