"Could you explain how 2:1 was a mistake? Positive results were obtain with 33% more patients receiving leronlimab than would have received it had the trial been 1:1."

I've read many times that from a statistical standpoint, 2:1 is generally a hindrance compared to 1:1 but was done for ethical reasons. Pardon me if that's not always true. So my point is we would have gotten even better results with 1:1 (again purely from a statistical standpoint but helped less patients get better), perhaps even reaching stat significance for the primary endpoint if 1:1 was used?