So, maybe the point of confusion is whether or not the patients on B who benefited from a significant delay in the onset of SOM ended up suffering from it for the same length of time as all others, they just started suffering later. Or, in the PR somewhere, is it implicit that not only did the B patients benefit from a delay in the onset, but when SOM did began, it ran it's course much quicker. Informed comments on this, please. Overall, as a layman, this PR on the secondary endpoints can only be construed as a positive IMO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
