Rex Eupseiphos, One does not have to try to be
Post# of 153903
(Total Views: 725)
Posted On: 05/24/2020 3:53:21 PM
Re: Rex Eupseiphos #35207
Rex Eupseiphos,
One does not have to try to be optimistic based on anecdotal data. We can use the data we all have (from different perspectives) to form an opinion. We are all doing it. When Dr. NP says “this is a double digit stock”, or Dr. Lalezari says” this drug will be approved” or Dr. Patterson says” I am seeing extraordinary results” they have formed an opinion and are communicating it. They are not trying to be optimistic.
They are and so am I. The data is sometimes anecdotal, sometimes is not.
Not to beat a dead horse here but I respectfully disagree. There is a case and is statistically valid in the sense of modeling with the information at hand a possible outcome. Something is better than nothing. Of course, we would like to have more data and, of course, we would like to have the perfect control group. The problems is: we don’t. If we wait until the trial is over to have all the information perhaps will be too late (for investment purposes).
Once again, I disagree with you. First of all, nobody is saying there is certainty, by the contrary. As a matter of fact, even a p-number of 0.05, normally used by FDA as level of significance, has uncertainty. The board readers are educated investors and the idea is to provide information. No more no less. Everybody is free to use it as is. Nobody is claiming to know the truth here nor communicating certainties (or uncertainties).
One patient working out of a ventilator is not a good statistical sample, neither there is a "control", however it provides lots of information. We all know that it does not provide certainty but we all agree that there is something "there".
I hope you are not saying this in a demeaning way. But, my calculations are not simple as they are not complicated either (they use the same model that likely FDA will use (Binomial for Severe to Critical) and, for the case of the simulations of Mild-to-Moderate, un-weighted normal distribution. They are “little” simply because I don’t have more data, I wish we had it. As for the results, I am sure everybody knows these are just approximations and that is why every time we work with several possibilities (in the example naming several outcomes as for the number of survivals).
In regards to the “control group” and the 88% number mentioned in the Patterson paper (from the Richardson paper). Sure, It can be higher of lower. However, it is a valid to say: if this number is valid, and, taking into account that this many patients treated with Leronlimab survived. Does this provide evidence that the drug was beneficial ? Yes? No ?. Now if this is, say 50%, is this still the case? Yes ? No?. And so on. I find it useful to ask and answer these questions to decide on my investment(s).
And hope some of the board feel likewise.
I have been investing in CYDY for many years, have been buying stock all the way to the $0.30’s as, after reading several papers on the science of CCR5 I was then, as I am now, convinced that the chances of CYDY going to $0 was, well 0.
One does not have to try to be optimistic based on anecdotal data. We can use the data we all have (from different perspectives) to form an opinion. We are all doing it. When Dr. NP says “this is a double digit stock”, or Dr. Lalezari says” this drug will be approved” or Dr. Patterson says” I am seeing extraordinary results” they have formed an opinion and are communicating it. They are not trying to be optimistic.
They are and so am I. The data is sometimes anecdotal, sometimes is not.
Quote:
but it's really hard to make an even slightly compelling statistical case for how these forecast the results of the trials
Not to beat a dead horse here but I respectfully disagree. There is a case and is statistically valid in the sense of modeling with the information at hand a possible outcome. Something is better than nothing. Of course, we would like to have more data and, of course, we would like to have the perfect control group. The problems is: we don’t. If we wait until the trial is over to have all the information perhaps will be too late (for investment purposes).
Quote:
Small convenience sample, no control group. When you don't have good samples, statistical formulas are more misleading than informative because they give an unrealistic semblance of certainty when there is nothing there
Once again, I disagree with you. First of all, nobody is saying there is certainty, by the contrary. As a matter of fact, even a p-number of 0.05, normally used by FDA as level of significance, has uncertainty. The board readers are educated investors and the idea is to provide information. No more no less. Everybody is free to use it as is. Nobody is claiming to know the truth here nor communicating certainties (or uncertainties).
One patient working out of a ventilator is not a good statistical sample, neither there is a "control", however it provides lots of information. We all know that it does not provide certainty but we all agree that there is something "there".
Quote:
Your simple little calculations are fine, and I do that sort of thing all the time. But I recognize that the numbers that come out the other side are little more than speculation and are guaranteed to be wrong.
I hope you are not saying this in a demeaning way. But, my calculations are not simple as they are not complicated either (they use the same model that likely FDA will use (Binomial for Severe to Critical) and, for the case of the simulations of Mild-to-Moderate, un-weighted normal distribution. They are “little” simply because I don’t have more data, I wish we had it. As for the results, I am sure everybody knows these are just approximations and that is why every time we work with several possibilities (in the example naming several outcomes as for the number of survivals).
In regards to the “control group” and the 88% number mentioned in the Patterson paper (from the Richardson paper). Sure, It can be higher of lower. However, it is a valid to say: if this number is valid, and, taking into account that this many patients treated with Leronlimab survived. Does this provide evidence that the drug was beneficial ? Yes? No ?. Now if this is, say 50%, is this still the case? Yes ? No?. And so on. I find it useful to ask and answer these questions to decide on my investment(s).
And hope some of the board feel likewise.
Quote:
A few months ago, I thought the chances of SP going to 0 were about the same as the chances of going to $10
I have been investing in CYDY for many years, have been buying stock all the way to the $0.30’s as, after reading several papers on the science of CCR5 I was then, as I am now, convinced that the chances of CYDY going to $0 was, well 0.
(13)
(0)