My intent is not to ever muddy the bulletin board. I make mistakes on occasion, and my posting history will acknowledge that. My purpose is to try to bring clarity if I think instead there is confusion on an issue.
But I'm sorry but it does seem like you are not reading Avii's points correctly, and that you keep referencing back to the initial efficacy analysis that did not take place and that Avii is therefore wrong, when that is not the efficacy analysis that Avii is referencing.
So after awhile, despite you being the brilliant writer you are, I stop reading those particular posts as thoroughly as perhaps I should, because they are long, and a bit tedious, and I think they are incorrect.
Perhaps I'm being unfair. I know we are usually in agreement, but we can't always be. Maybe I'm wrong, or being sloppy, or you are. I don't really mind that much.
What I know is this...
There was never efficacy 2014 IA analysis.
The company has stated multiple times that they are still blinded. So if there was a 2015 efficacy IA, either they didn't see it, weren't privy to it, or it was a blinded analysis, much like the 2017 one.
As far as what is right, or who is right, all that matters most to me is that people know I don't think the company is unblinded. I don't think they were privy to an unblinded 2015 efficacy analysis.
And there are reasons to think they were, which the bear arguers will cite, and reasons to think they weren't, which I've been citing (along with others) for many years now.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
