I agree. BiotechHedge is reading one interpretation into these statements and suggesting that his is the only possible one.
In brief, "possibility" is not equivalent to "probability", and the "reasonable" qualification clearly suggests that this possibility, whatever it may have been, was certainly less than 50%.
All the official sounding language surrounding it was probably designed to give some heft to the notion that second interim efficacy approval had at least a shot(i.e. was within the realm of possibility-not probability).
Of course, the fact that this qualifies as overzealous braggadocio is not surprising considering the source.
However, it is probably true that there was a "reasonable possibility" of that outcome, and that such a possibility might have been news to the larger biotech community that was not following these developments very closely.
So, of course, always in search of the ever elusive respect and admiration of his peers, said person could not resist drawing attention to this particular "reasonable possibility", only to have it backfire and reinforce yet again the impression of underdelivery.
As an ariad shareholder, I can only hope enduring such repeated gaffs (and their poor public relations consequences) results in a big payoff.
Regards,
bw
AI
