You haven't refuted my argument, here or anywhere else. Not even close.
The K-M curves are not tea leaves. They are a standard tool of trial analysis because they concisely present the trial data. 8,000+ subjects followed for ~5 years, extremely low p, SPA that precludes p-hacking, double blind, 450+ different independent facilities around the world, K-M curves summarize a great deal of valuable, highly reliable data.
As I pointed out to you on twitter, it's obvious that the placebo (P) and Vascepa (V) curves coincide initially (just slight routine statistical variation and apparently slight immediate blood thinning benefit from V, as expected). If MO had the immediate and large deadly effect you claim, in the initial period before most of the V benefit had had time to influence event rates, the P curve would have to start out high above the V curve. It didn't. The V curve initially starts out quite near the true untreated event rate, the same as a perfect placebo, except for the slight immediate blood thinning benefit. The P curve ended up virtually exactly in line with its initial rate, which was confirmed by the initial V rate. You can completely ignore the P curve and the V curve clearly shows wonderful risk reduction kicking in after about a year, compared to either the P curve or the initial V curve.
The V curve alone proves great risk reduction, without MO. You have nowhere to go with this. A lot of people understand it. You embarrass yourself. The curves are conclusive, there's no way around it, that's why the expert consensus agrees with me that Vascepa is a wonderful breakthrough. No one credible comes close to sharing your view. Your report is embarrassingly biased and flawed. The authors were wise to stay anonymous.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
