Even if many deaths were outside of 28 days as you

Even if many deaths were outside of 28 days as you suggest, they can still review the data and see the benefit.

However, I disagree with you about the number of deaths in our trial being outside of 28 days. There are many reasons for this:

1) The EIND patients don't support this thesis
2) Many of the trials that we have referenced for mortality numbers shows 30%+ mortality INSIDE of 28 days
3) I believe Leronlimab was used on patients in a more advanced stage than the RLFTF trial, so death was closer.

A patient that is just beginning to progress to critical has longer to live than a patient who has been critical for weeks.

The RLFTF trial is for "critical" patients, take a look at the exclusion criteria. Clearly we were accepting patients that were worse off. (and some that were not as far along in the disease)

I maintain my belief that the recommendation to look at 42 day mortality at 28 days was to possibly help obtain a p value of .005 (2 zeroes) so as to halt the trial at 75% enrollment. At the time that this was offered by the DSMC the enrollment was at a snail pace.

The argument that we may have only had 67 deaths inside of 28 days actually strengthens Leronlimabs efficacy projection, if we assume that there was 30% mortally in placebo, INSIDE of 28 days. Your argument REQUIRES that our mortality figure is dramatically less than that of other comparable trials.