InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

gnawkz

04/27/15 9:38 AM

#33929 RE: flipper44 #33926

Wouldn't this complicate the calculation of the seconday objective of OS? Especially if the patient decides to pursue another course of treatment.

Or would it be much more favorable for NWBO as other treatments would increase the survival rate when used in conjunction with L.
icon url

koman

04/27/15 9:48 AM

#33930 RE: flipper44 #33926

I also assumed that the cross-over arm would keep the blind to continue. But IF jmlogan is correct and that protocol he claims to have states correctly that the cross-over arm is open label, then our assumption of continuing blind is no longer on solid turf anymore. Also, Mr. Smith has been rather quiet about answering this similar question just like last time I asked him about the 110 events. I had to riddle the management with many emails to get them to finally include that info about the 110events in their later PR releases. They had initially hidden that info in their 10K in the fine print. Maybe people on this board need to also start emailing or calling management to clear this up. IF the cross-over arm is truly open label, there is no way the blind can continue and no one will believe management when they claimed to still remain blinded to the results when they decided to make the latest changes to the pIII trial. This gives AF's claims more credence.