News Focus
News Focus
icon url

flipper44

09/23/17 7:51 PM

#136085 RE: flipper44 #136084

I'll just discuss this hypothetical a bit further. Again, very far fetched, but..... What if they are going to unblind formerly blinded interim analyses. What if that strained reading is the accurate reading? This would go back to the issue I had concerns with when I started investing in the company. In other words, what if they succeeded at early IAs but then had to continue the blind in order to have OS data with blinded integrity. That would be too much responsibility to place on LP's shoulders. So after my concerns, the trial did not even report IAs (hope it wasn't something I said or posted). We have no idea if they were conducted or if conducted what the recommendations were. Perhaps LP and LG didn't know what the recommendations were either (if they occurred). Their recent 8K made it sound like they might be as surprised by the "disclosure" as anyone else. Maybe just the steering committee and regulators knew the recommendations (if efficacy IAs occurred.) OK, enough grasping at straws. Who knows? Have a good weekend.
icon url

anders2211

09/23/17 7:54 PM

#136086 RE: flipper44 #136084

You know what.

With DR Bosch presentation and NWBO referring to SoS..
How much more blinded data can NWBO actually still anticipate for?

Disclose = Allow (something hidden) to be seen (Oxfort dictionary)
Is the blinded data out there really still so much hidden for NWBO it needs to be disclosed so much more? Is it not too much over emphasizing if NWBO says the disclosing of blinded data. How much-blinded data is still unknown to NWBO..? The word "disclosing: is IMO much more appropriate for unblinding the data, cause it truly is DISCLOSING... I play a lot of word games in court so... :)

So disclosing formerly conducted (if conducted) interim results...
its not a bad theory at all :)