Do you really not understand the basis of the statement that the 232 did not better than then 99? Here goes.
We know the overall data from the trail as of late '18. The mOS, 2y OS and 3y OS were all better in the overall population than what was reported for the 232 arm in the JAMA paper.
The mOS and 2Y OS were already set in stone as every patient had been on trial at least almost 3 years. The 3Y OS was not set, but virtually a done deal.
Sorry if the math is hard for you.
Further, NWBO could always present the data as it is a formal secondary endpoint of the trial. Yet they do not.
Anybody who does not understand that the 232 did not outperform the 99 is an idiot.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
