You seem to always be negative. No offense taken.

Quote:

---

You seem to always be negative.

---

No offense taken.

However, I am a facts-based realist. Investing is not a hobby for me. I listen very carefully to the facts that are presented in each call.

In the past two presentations (Oct 20 & Proactive), there has not been a single reference to the notion of:

Quote:

---

"What is very encouraging is that the statistician of the DSMC considered that with 75% of patients we can probably meet statistical significance (p + power)".

---

That is an assumption -- it is not a fact.

And I tried to make the point that not only was that comment NOT conveyed by the DSMC, but the phrase: "Sample size reassessment will be considered at that interim analysis" does not necessarily guarantee that it will be a favorable reassessment.

For example, how exactly do we know if advances in SOC that possibly caused lower mortality rates in the placebo arm might have had the DSMC teetering on asking us for a larger N -- but they decided not to do it until they saw the 75% interim numbers? I certainly hope that's not the case, but trust me, they added Mortality at Day 42 for a reason -- otherwise they would have just left Mortality at Day 28.

Bottom Line: We don't know what is in the minds of the DSMC -- we can't know. I certainly hope they are not thinking along those lines. I hope that the 75% interim represents a real opportunity for leronlimab to finally be approved -- so we can start saving lives.

But that's hope.

Saying "What is very encouraging is that the statistician of the DSMC considered that with 75% of patients we can probably meet statistical significance" -- is simply not a fact.

And if anyone thinks my observation is "negative" -- then I would encourage that person to put me on ignore -- because I am not going to stop stating facts.