DNDN – Following up on #msg-32665772: I think the 0.78 number (as opposed to the 0.80 number) that Dr. Gold mentioned on yesterday’s CC is all but meaningless.
0.78 is supposedly the HR that the combined 9901/9902a trials showed at the same point in time that the 9902b interim analysis was conducted. However, there must be myriad ways of calculating such a soft number, and 0.78 is presumably the most favorable number DNDN’s statisticians could come up with without being guilty of outright fraud.
The larger question is: Why did DNDN disclose these numbers in the first place?
The reason for the unorthodox disclosures, IMO, is essentially the same as the reason DNDN altered the 9902b SPA to reduce the time gap between the interim and final analyses from two years to one year: to facilitate raising capital after a failed interim analysis.
If DNDN now raises a ton of cash, as I expect it will, the company will be able to survive even if 9902b ends up failing and the Provenge program is subsequently ditched.
Of course, DNDN hopes 9902b will succeed and Provenge will turn out to be a commercial success. However, assuring the company’s survival without Provenge in the event that 9902b fails is the company’s paramount objective, IMO.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
