If it were that good than why not just say so? What if the "placebo" patients were doing okay and they sent them to the vaccine arm anyway to hit the 232? Wait, what? I don't know but the point is an explanation is required.
Precisely Ex. Oldest play in the book for a very old trial. This should've been stated clearly in JAMA. Stupp gets it.
"For the other 3, they randomized 68% of those screened. They only filtered out about 150 for progression while randomizing over 2000. NWBO filtered out 250 progressions for 331 randomized"
GermanCol thank you once again for your careful attention to detail in exposing intentionally misleading posts that flood this site daily. I’ve said before but a significant part of my confidence in this investment is that none of the very thoughtful and calculated criticisms withstand scrutiny from you and the other knowledge posters. Best regards!