A stirring and passionate defense of your position

A stirring and passionate defense of your position! I like it.

I know you said you won't post on this again, but please indulge me two serious questions. Underlined below.

I see that you are honing in on the 62 patients, which makes sense because that is where our best efficacy was shown (critical). When you speak of 50 or 70 additional patients, are you thinking these need to be critical patients, or any that qualify for CD12?

If you are thinking critical, that would make sense to me. I think that I heard on one of the calls that only 6 or 8 of the 50 OLE patients were critical? Does that fit with your recollection? (And, good shot about turning the volume up.....how did you know I wear hearing aids!?!?)

I do agree that solid data (with a like-sized control) on 120 or so critical patients would be amazing. I think this is more likely to be accomplished via a new trial than via a straight extension. (Probably with overseas patients).

Now would probably be a good time for me to apologize for attacking you personally, instead of just arguing the content of your posts. So, I apologize.

And, we will have to remain on the opposite sides of the "downing Nader speak" discussion. It is precisely because of his track record that I pretty much ignore his forward looking statements. I kind of have to believe his past-looking statements, such as the concept that 8 or the 50 OLE were critical, although I prefer to see that type of info in writing.