This seems to happen with every trial result. The first readout looks weak to middling and inconclusive, then when statisticians have had time to flesh out significant comparisons, the results look much better a couple weeks later.

I wonder why ... is the stats team being rushed to produce the numbers and they fail to mine all the relevant info? Do the latter (better) results come from a second source that does a more efficient job or do the statisticians need more time to evaluate the data before releasing the numbers?

This has happened before when there were no statistical anomalies created by things like an imbalance of age/severity subjects. Are we only seeing "rookie mistakes" from an upstart bio?

Behind the scenes, like a bad situation comedy, Janet Stickdick and crew are chortling ... "Oh, those small pharma guys can't do anything right! (As they picture the CytoDyn crew running around out of control in the lab like the Keystone Cops on acid) OK, who's next? Mr. Pfizer, come right in, we've been waiting for you ..."