(Total Views: 584)
Posted On: 09/23/2020 10:29:58 PM
Post# of 151805
Re: onestepahead #57605
Seems like you are agreeing to me. We can't "pay for results" if we don't have money. It's amazing we can show "stat sig data" on small numbers of patients but have we/will we? They enrolled thousands of patients in the same amount of time we enrolled hundreds. They received EUA's and we have not.
More patients and faster enrollment is better. Higher statistical significance is better.
We all hope that the interim results are vastly superior to what Gilead has. We are less likely to find that answer with lower enrollment in an interim analysis and final enrollment of the full trial stretching out to the end of the year.
He continued on that it takes 15 years for approval on average but "we are on the verge". Could be we are still far from approval. At this point, we have MOA and anecdotel cases. We don't have ANY results in our S/C trial. We have hope and faith but that is not going to cut it without statistically significant improvement in survival.
More patients and faster enrollment is better. Higher statistical significance is better.
We all hope that the interim results are vastly superior to what Gilead has. We are less likely to find that answer with lower enrollment in an interim analysis and final enrollment of the full trial stretching out to the end of the year.
He continued on that it takes 15 years for approval on average but "we are on the verge". Could be we are still far from approval. At this point, we have MOA and anecdotel cases. We don't have ANY results in our S/C trial. We have hope and faith but that is not going to cut it without statistically significant improvement in survival.
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
