Thanks for the added color. This is the enrollment (from their PR) of the just failed RR study.
154 patients testing positive for the HLA-DR2 and/or HLA-DR4 immune response gene; and 64 patients testing negative for the HLA-DR2 and HLA-DR4 gene.
They said that in reference to analysis they met (or didn't) using dr2/dr4+ but again I would take things with a grain of salt with their liberal definition of met as < .15.
Going by the PR it looks like it was a 15 month study with patients receiving infusions at time point 0, 3 months and 9 months. Do you think that is a long enough time period?
They seemed to be using a lot of selective disclosure on the call whether they are sincere in their wanting to save data for a medical meeting or not I can't say since I am not too familiar with them. They also had one of their science guys trying to justify why the study could be negative and still not impact their SPMS Phase 3.
I wonder if the drug fails if the one brother will try to keep his wife on drug somehow? But then I guess it could fall under Zebra's law since this probably accounts for 99% of their valuation.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
