InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

flipper44

11/27/19 2:04 PM

#253630 RE: Sir Pumpernickel #253617

Try quoting something specific. You are making no sense.
icon url

exwannabe

11/27/19 8:45 PM

#253674 RE: Sir Pumpernickel #253617

Here Flipper44, maybe this will simplify it for you. NOTHING has been unblinded at any time.


There were two efficacy IAs designed into the trial (and again after the 2015 canceled IA and resize). LP asserted there would be one in summer '15.

One can claim this never happened. But NWBO has never denied it, only staying 100% silent on it (after having said when to expect it). I will maintain there is a very good chance the efficacy IA did happen, so the DSMB did see all unblinded data.

There is also the FDA hold. If this was not based on unblinded analisys then all the positive theories are out the window.

And let us not forget the shipping clerk.
icon url

biosectinvestor

11/28/19 12:17 AM

#253696 RE: Sir Pumpernickel #253617

I have not read your other posts, at this stage, but of course nothing was unblinded to the company ever, or they’d be unable to do the SAP. I believe they have consistently said this and of course the lawsuit that was dismissed for failure to state a claim was based on the notion that they HAD seen data and were concealing it from shareholders, and that proved to not be true or they’d have been able to litigate that suit. They had no evidence to suggest it.

So I am not surprised by your assertion here... as to where you might take it, I will plead ignorance. I think I saw some earlier posts of yours though and did not find them to have surprising assertions.

Hopefully will catch up to the rest of your posts when I have a chance to drill down into the disorganized posting structure of the board which, with no topic or subject headings makes every debate non-cumulative and never ending...

Have a good evening and GLTU.