Thanks, I missed that. It is possible that they weighed the results (and future costs) against their other programs and decided "we need to cut costs and possibly bring in money from one of our products, so this will be the one." Not necessarily bad data, just not as good as the others from a cost-benefit standpoint. Wasn't this only a dose escalation study? Seems even more unlikely that the efficacy results can be viewed as "bad," no?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
