(Total Views: 663)
Posted On: 11/10/2020 3:16:43 PM
Post# of 154032
Pfizer's DSMC basically said in their recommendation (paraphrasing) "Proceed with trial as planned. Interim results show 90% efficacy."
Pfizer is still blinded, but based on my rough math, they could easily have back calculated how many were infected in vaccine group and how many in placebo group.
94 infected. ‐‐> 86 in placebo and 8 in vaccine
Meaning 86 should have been infected in vaccine group, but the vaccine prevented 78 infecrions.
78/86 = 90%
So my question is, did Cytodyn's DSMC provide any efficacy numbers as part of their recommendation? If not why? Apparently, it is within the rules to provide context to the recommendation. So it is possible Cytodyn has some inkling what the breakdown is for the 45 deaths that were reported at interim. If true, why did they not choose to put in a PR as Lilly did? Fear of the FDA? So many questions as we see how other companies do things differently with greater success than Cytodyn (in terms of strategy, not science).
Pfizer is still blinded, but based on my rough math, they could easily have back calculated how many were infected in vaccine group and how many in placebo group.
94 infected. ‐‐> 86 in placebo and 8 in vaccine
Meaning 86 should have been infected in vaccine group, but the vaccine prevented 78 infecrions.
78/86 = 90%
So my question is, did Cytodyn's DSMC provide any efficacy numbers as part of their recommendation? If not why? Apparently, it is within the rules to provide context to the recommendation. So it is possible Cytodyn has some inkling what the breakdown is for the 45 deaths that were reported at interim. If true, why did they not choose to put in a PR as Lilly did? Fear of the FDA? So many questions as we see how other companies do things differently with greater success than Cytodyn (in terms of strategy, not science).
(3)
(0)
