The Securities and Exchange Commission Message Board

Sponsor

To: Robert C. Jonson who wrote (300)	5/21/2012 3:38:42 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) of 337

Wasn't long ago that Cox was denying that naked shorting even existed. Then he collected some data and said, without grace and paraphrasing,..... "oops!" >> PPHM released a pr that had no p values or hazard ratio << That's just not acceptable. >> and my thinking is that small trials aren't conducive to p values. Is my thinking correct on this? << Yes, but it's a bad thing that you're correct about. Limping along on a shoestring, when it lasts forever, isn't exactly a great business plan. edit: just looked.... you're up 17% on the day... congrats! edit 2: well, just looked at the release. Primary endpoint is a bit weird, but it's a double in "response rate". No stats are required, so my answer above needs to be tempered. Still no excuse for the pfs data, and this language isn't particularly exacting..... "an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS)" Best! Rick