I'm still thinking, that as of March 2017 data cutoff, 64 still alive before 36 months, and 44 still alive after 36 months. Trying to square this with the Journal, it would seem only a couple died 46 - 44(still alive) by March 2017. It seems impossible.
Either:
1. As of March 2017, there could be more still alive (censors) in the 36 month graphs neither of us spotted/counted, and thus less still alive (less censors) as of that date beyond 36 months. Or, Instead,
2. Only 2 people out of 46 died after reaching 36 months or beyond by March 2017.
The first seems more rational, but the second might explain why everyone is acting so strangely surrounding this trial. It might explain why anything after 36 months from time zero was being held confidential for so long (example: why the graph is essentially not showing years of data). It might explain why a couple investigators publicly stated the trial screening was halted so investigators could see what was going on, and one even going so far as saying they needed to determine whether or not this is a blockbuster -- if I recall Dr. Cobb's video correctly. Or, Instead,
3. There are 44 alive by March 2017 that are beyond 36 months and there are approximately 14 additional patients who also made it to or beyond 36 months but died before March 2017. I go back to the hard to decipher charts as making this most likely but harder to square with the Journal's 25.4% survival at 36 months.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
