And I said I knew it was there and never denied it. That I let you and shorts post the SUBSEQUENT IA but used the case to explain it is not “unblinding” and specifically qualified it as up to that point, and that it provides a good explanation for how it works, and then took the language from that very JAMA report and gave you the explanation for why their use of it there to adjust their statistics PROVES just how rock solid the trial is.
But you persist at your false effort to suggest I did not know. But anyone with a brain can go back and see that ExW and I have touched on this before.
The court case was up to that point, as I qualified, but it explains the nature of such exercises including when the IA goes beyond safety only.
It’s not unblinding, and there is a statistical adjustment, which was done.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
