InvestorsHub Logo

oneragman

09/05/19 11:01 AM

#212758 RE: Atom0aks #212755

Atom,

"4.8% of people who experience a primary efficacy end point"

That statement cannot be correct...think about it.

IgnoranceIsBliss

09/05/19 11:03 AM

#212759 RE: Atom0aks #212755

So 4.8% primary endpoint risk reduction over median 4.9 years.

And we're talking about 3 months (.25 years)

So if the delay kept a million people off V for 3 months, you'd expect the following event reduction

1,000,000 x .048 x .25/4.9

That's 2,448 events

Of which about ~20% would be CV deaths (maybe a little less) -- call it 15% for conservatism -- so ~367 events

But of course you have to look at ultimate usage levels, not upfront

If ultimately 20 million people globally are on V, and this delay pushed that out 3 months, then you're talking 20x that death count

rafunrafun

09/05/19 11:07 AM

#212761 RE: Atom0aks #212755

A - I cannot let you get away with dodging. You said:

The population that Vascepa WILL prevent cardiovascular death is very, very small and more difficult to accurately identify (which is meh...)



I then asked you to define, in numerical terms what you meant by "very, very small"

You reply with ARR 4.8%.

DUH! Who didn't know what the ARR number was?!

The question is how many more events will occur by this 3 month delay. Keep dodging.

I see that BUS and JL have answered, thanks gents.

I love it when the true agenda comes out!

"Very, very small" LOLOLOLOL