Why does DD find it more risky to own something with a p value of 10 to the minus 7 versus a company with a drug that got a not approvable (MNTA)? Why is GTCB attractive (to whoever said it that their mgmt team and such sucked i agree- i met their IR guy at a conference and he was like WIlford Brimley)?
>I still think DD could have given a better example. Satraplatin comes quickly to mind.<
I didn’t cite Satraplatin as an example because the p-value with many zeros turned out to be for a non-standard endpoint (a composite PFS with some novel components).
Avastin (in breast cancer) and Vectibix had many zeros in their p-values for an established endpoint (conventionally defined PFS) and yet the applications still ran into significant troubles along the way to approval.
The impetus for this thread is that a poster on this board likes to cite the many zeros in Proellex’s phase-2 p-value as justification for Joe to use the phrase slam dunk in describing the drug or its clinical trials. My contention is that this viewpoint is naïve. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
