Why is that obvious exactly? Unless I missed something, it sounded like at the same time period in the earlier trial or integrated analysis (i.e. 24 month follow up period), the HR for that data was .78 and the HR that was disclosed today was .80. That's not substantially off, is it?
It’s now obvious that the HR observed in 9901 and 9902a was biased high relative to the true underlying HR in this patient pool, just as PSB said it should be.
Agreed. But again that is not a difference between me and you. You guessed a discount for PSB and so did I and it looks like in the final (which is the point for which we gave estimated HRs) it will come in right between us.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
