trding, I well explained it Not as VL failure,
Post# of 155544
(Total Views: 245)
Posted On: 03/07/2019 8:23:24 PM
trding, I well explained it
Not as VL failure, but takes away the responder rate. I am sure you are capable reading my text which explicitly clarifies that.
525mg is also a PE failure already and they shouldn't waste time & resources on that, IMHO. 700mg is surely the winning dosage known today.
Poster says: An additional ~200 subjects _will_be_ ...
"It says: "None of the reported SAEs were definitely or probably related to PRO140(leronlimab)""
trding, I used exactly that statement in my sentence. Read it slowly.
+++
to all others (and actually trding as well re prio accusations), here my other message copied for you - and I am out of this channel and you can enjoy your echo chamber.
misui, evil - you are biased
My analysis is objective.
Our SAEs have unknown causes, I agree w/ you that the trial should have dropped HAART from the data set.
But that is not the protocol definition, so we need to stay objective to the PE here.
If the next trial drops the HAART introduction, great.
But then again, they came from HAART therapy.
And I strongly protest (again) that you and certain other people here confuse the debate about the matter with stock manipulation.
That is very horrible of you who accuse me of that.
Outright disgusting, while I share my analysis with you.
You can ignore it, if you wish so - but please stay on topic.
It is not my fault that CD03 dosage < 700mg has failed PE,
which has been known when they increased the dosage.
Not as VL failure, but takes away the responder rate. I am sure you are capable reading my text which explicitly clarifies that.
525mg is also a PE failure already and they shouldn't waste time & resources on that, IMHO. 700mg is surely the winning dosage known today.
Poster says: An additional ~200 subjects _will_be_ ...
"It says: "None of the reported SAEs were definitely or probably related to PRO140(leronlimab)""
trding, I used exactly that statement in my sentence. Read it slowly.
+++
to all others (and actually trding as well re prio accusations), here my other message copied for you - and I am out of this channel and you can enjoy your echo chamber.
misui, evil - you are biased
My analysis is objective.
Our SAEs have unknown causes, I agree w/ you that the trial should have dropped HAART from the data set.
But that is not the protocol definition, so we need to stay objective to the PE here.
If the next trial drops the HAART introduction, great.
But then again, they came from HAART therapy.
And I strongly protest (again) that you and certain other people here confuse the debate about the matter with stock manipulation.
That is very horrible of you who accuse me of that.
Outright disgusting, while I share my analysis with you.
You can ignore it, if you wish so - but please stay on topic.
It is not my fault that CD03 dosage < 700mg has failed PE,
which has been known when they increased the dosage.
(0)
(0)