Seems to me Nader would had to of reported the negative fact that we did not achieve our Primary Endpoint overall and 100% that he must know by now. Since the PE can be calculated in about 52 seconds, it seems reasonable to assume we did achieve p < 0.05
A PR today said a company's therapeutic did not achieve statistical significance for it's Primary Endpoint. But it did achieve statistical significance in the PE for s/c patients over 70 years old.
Better to save a few, vs saving none, right = a "limited" EUA"?
This IMO, this brings up some potential ambiguity as to whether or not our CEO Dr. Nader, must report substative negative data/results.
Our Primary Endpoint mortality does not have any age criteria. It seems we could have a p value < 0.05 in several sub-groups, while not for the Primary Endpoint overal. Thus, the FDA could be working out a limited EUA, only for certain sub-groups? But I don't think so.
A PR today said a company's therapeutic did not achieve statistical significance for it's Primary Endpoint. But it did achieve statistical significance in the PE for s/c patients over 70 years old.
Better to save a few, vs saving none, right = a "limited" EUA"?
This IMO, this brings up some potential ambiguity as to whether or not our CEO Dr. Nader, must report substative negative data/results.
Our Primary Endpoint mortality does not have any age criteria. It seems we could have a p value < 0.05 in several sub-groups, while not for the Primary Endpoint overal. Thus, the FDA could be working out a limited EUA, only for certain sub-groups? But I don't think so.
1
