Try not to pay too much attention to the paranoid side of this post. I totally accept things often just get messed up without bad intent. I'm just loosely examining the new info -- aka: the last 31 were truly randomized.
Could it be that when the sites had an odd number of patients, the algorithm was so predictable it handled randomization a certain way, and it never went back to check?
I think it's fair to ask if the same algorithm might also be responsible for placing several/ a "few" too many methylated MGMT into the trial.
There are a few odd ducks in this saga involved with or claiming more information than I think they might otherwise have. Smith and AF are the main ones.
Smith is literally claiming criminal intervention. Now, are these phone call triggered algorithms subject to hacking, if say, one had the phone number and that led them to the computer?
Finally, if the algorithm sucked, and UCLA wasn't paying enough attention to oversee it, could the methylated increase in count have delayed the trial somewhat?
These things could be explained with or without intentional tampering I suppose.
If it was intentional, and it was a foreign country, I suppose the US would be really upset and try to hold a bad actor in North America, from said foreign country, in order to get the hackers back here if they left or did it from overseas?
Finally, if the addition of more methylated increased the length of the trial, it would have also decreased the trial's power unless the trial ran on long enough?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
