I agree. You can't tell.
The pundits also said that Provenge would fail because the final event was too close in time to the interim event.
Despite this, Provenge succeeded.
Oh. And the "statisticians" on the message boards also claimed there was a long delay in the trials of Genvec and Novellos' cancer trials and that the long delays in the interim was because the drug was showing high levels of effiacacy versus the placebo. And guess what? Those two drugs showed massive failure. Anyone who knows anything about these trials knows that when you do a randomized, placebo arm in a phase 3, you can throw all prior results out the window. Despite people calling him a basher, Adam Feuarstein has referenced this SEVERAL times over and over and a lot of people still dont get the picture.
I have big problems with the Ridaforolimus trial in that everyone in the trial is essentially progression free after receiving many rounds of therapy. So, one could say that, its possible, out of chance, that a great deal of these patients in the placebo arm could be "cured" and skew the results to show Rida has little efficacy (ie. wash out the rida numbers), when in fact, Rida very well may show signals, but it wouldn't be showing bc of the dampening effect of the placebo arm.
If Rida was doing so great, (according to some who posted numbers of being 50% better than the placebo at the second interim), then why was the trial allowed to continue? If it was showing high levels of divergence in the arms, it would have been unethical to continue the trial.
AI
