We already have a winner here, yet switched to cha

We already have a winner here, yet switched to chase something that might be a hit or miss. We can easily hit the p value on both Severe and Critical.

I was just looking in the processed data in the 8k.
Looking into the data just by changing the protocol for both sever and critical to be only under 65 yrs old and testing few more subjects we are easily to hit a high mortality reduction with a very high confidence (insignificant p value).

Despite critical results show to be more promising. Since the p value is high (or the level of confidence is low - due to a small sample size) we might see dramatic shifts in results. For instance, if 1 person was more in LL death and 1 less in placebo, we wouldn't be chasing critical, IMO.

What I'm trying to say is that,
- we are 100% going to hit p values on relative reduction if we only go for under 65 for both severe and critical.
- we *might* miss if we chase critical only (current result are with low confidence level)

This is an approved products if we change the protocol to under 65 and add few more samples.

If you agree with my observation please reach out to the corp and advise on the matter.
We already have a winner here, yet switched to chase something that might be a hit or miss.