"We knew from a post hoc analysis, again admittedly with all the caveats, that the Merck study had some patients who had over 400ng/mL; they had analgesia.”
Exactly how many of the patients with over 400ng/mL had analgesia? Was this analgesia significant enough to control their pain, or was it just "detectable analgesia" on the pain scale. Third molar extraction...were they begging for codeine a little less or not at all?
What are "all the caveats" you speak of? Would a caveat be that there were only one or two patients who "had analgesia"? Finally, why do you keep showing us lab animal data when you know that NMED160 also worked great in lab animals? You refuse to show us the contrasting pain data between the two lab animal studies, i.e. NMED160 vs. Z160 pain data.
Yes, we saw the bioavailability comparison between the NMED160 and Z160 in lab animals, and I thank you very much for this. But, we are investing for pain control, not bioavailability for which a correlation with pain has not yet been established because you will not show us this data between the lab animals. This is quite concerning Justin because it suggests that low dosage works in lab animals but per equivalent weight in humans, our pain signaling mechanisms seem to be slipping around the channels that Z160 is blocking.
I hope Z160 is not a great pain medication only if you happen to be of a rodent genera.