That was a very weak and defensive argument. When one can't argue on the merit of points, one starts to argue 1. what the other person did personally, 2. Someone else's credential.
The fact is overwhelming majority of oncology drug candidates fail. It wasn't because people who designed the trials didn't have strong credentials, it was simply because drug mechanism of action didn't pan out in clinic. Whoever designed this ph2 trial in 2nd line NSCLC, whatever credential he had, even if he were God, his assumptions were incorrect, otherwise the trial would have met both primary and secondary endpoints.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
