Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

Clark,

I think you missed my point. I'm not asking you to subject your theory to a critique. In fact, quite the opposite; I want your theory and methods to stay consistent, i.e. exactly the same as you would for any other trial. I want you to assume that your biostatistical theories are correct, but that your conclusion, in this particular case, was wrong. Then I want you to figure out what exactly was your mistake in applying your (correct) theories and methods to this particular case with ARQL. For instance, it could be that the way that you applied your theory and methods was wrong. It could be that you had the incorrect data. Or it could be that you made certain assumptions about the trial that were wrong. Or it could be that you made assumptions about the patient population that were wrong.

I'm not talking about invalidating your theories and methods because of one miss. I want you to assume your theories and methods are correct, but that you missed. Now come up with an explanation for that miss.

Certainly, somewhere along the line of your analyses of biotech trials you've made predictions that turned out to be wrong. How then, in those very few instances where you have been wrong, do you account for your mistakes?


Bladerunner