Where did you read the Gallera trial had "more targeted and benign radiation"? Their patients may have been, by median (not average) exposed less than ours, but that does not mean all their patients were less exposed than 55 gy. In fact their trial protocol called for a minimum exposure of 60 gy. So there is some confusion around this "through 60 gy" language, which was pointed out. Typo? Early ending of trial? Massive spiking of incidence of SOM that the company thinks it can somehow hide? (No.)
Galeras' duration results are impressive. Leo is optimistic, and feels we are getting positive feedback from BPs. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. (Eg, oral use is preferable, as you rightly pointed out.)
I should point out we don't even know what B-OM did on duration. That's unfortunate, and does not please anyone. It means our results were tough to statistically interpret or rely on. But it leaves open the possibility that our duration effects are impressive too. Risk comes with hope, of course.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
