InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

biosectinvestor

05/22/24 4:39 PM

#693295 RE: manibiotech #693268

You really have a learning disorder or something. My first post pointed you to the JAMA paper, for the answer. I presumed you could find it but apparently you could not, so you begged me for it, but I don’t do work for shorts. Your short pal brought it up and you pretended that I did not know about it, but that plus the case, which gives background on why such IA’s do not unblind, and that the IA found safety and the DSMB recommended continuation of the trial. It also explained why they did not have to and often do not disclose such IA information beyond the general.

I can’t help it that you keep playing dense. Or is it that you’re playing? You seem not to know very much that is very basic and that has been discussed over many years. I pointed you to it. I wasn’t initially going to break it down for you. But the post to which you responded is ONLY in reference to the disclosure of that information in the JAMA paper, the one I pointed to and the one you keep claiming I did not point to…
icon url

biosectinvestor

05/22/24 4:57 PM

#693302 RE: manibiotech #693268

IC Light gave it to you though he did not point you to the right document. He doesn’t apparently know how to post links. It is in one of the supplemental documents, I believe the one from the consultants explaining their statistical approach. They disclose the IA, and then I plugged in all of JAMA, including those supplements, to ChatGPT, gave it just the section addressing the IA, and asked it to explain their discussion there, first in simple terms and then in more sophisticated statistical terms. Conclusion, they did exactly what they needed to do with that IA to ensure their conclusions in the JAMA paper are rock solid.