hey jonnyrocket. I'll take that on. Usually I have a hard time getting past all the clinical and preclinical PPHM information above the board entries. Now I can't even find it to get those signal seeking results. Got a website address for a lazy guy? You asked, "the data that came in - is it stat sig when compared to SOC?" If it were possible to answer the question accurately, it would have been answered already. The study was labeled "signal seeking" precisely because it cannot be tagged statistically for a number of reasons. A full college level course in statistics would be necessary for a full understanding. My recollection of that data is that some was only statistically significant to 95% confidence level,meaning that in 5 similar trials out of 100 the positive findings would not be there. Is that good enough for you? Usually a higher standard than that is required. The data is analyzed to see at what confidence level it conforms to. Those results are then compared to SOC results in a similar way to see if the difference between the trial results and SOC is, in fact, a statistical difference at an acceptable "confidence level". That accomplished, strangely enough, a result that is positive and statistically significant, (i.e. 4 days of additional survival vs. 1 day = 4 times the survival length), considering risk, expense, and side-effects does not always translate into a real clinical benefit (quality of life, etc.). After being "steeped" in the statistical method for long enough, one can often "feel" with some degree of accuracy what the likely outcome will be...and that's where the gambling comes in here...as of today. And I would say (at about the .01 confidence level!) that the more courses in statistics you've had the better off you are in determining the eventual outcome here. This, and all previous posts, IMO only.
