I don't think you know a thing about cost effectiveness or anything about this company. The two most important parameters about what is really important pertaining to this company, but good luck to you, just watch your back, t
here you go you dumb f-uc-k:
Occasionally a publicly traded company is advised that it is legally required to disclose certain data or other information from a confidential abstract in advance of the public release date to satisfy requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or a corresponding regulatory body in a country where the company’s stock is traded (collectively, “SEC”). Generally this need arises when there is a substantial likelihood that the information would be considered by a reasonable investor in the company to have significantly altered the total mix of information made available to the investor.
Chew on that one for a bit and get back to me. Let me know how raw your a55 is with your short position. How's that working out for ya?
That abstract was put out last Dec at a different conference and it was clearly labeled primary.
Do I expect them to produce better than the 7 months in an large trial? I strongly doubt it unless they build their trial to a limited patient population. On the other hand 7 months looks very good at this point of time.
Lastly I don't call you a basher, but because you are make false statements I will call you an douchebag.
The study was conducted on 80 “random” patients. The life expectancy went from adding 10-11 months to 6 to 7 months. Do you really think the numbers are going to get better in a larger sample? Speaking of which why did they release the more positive results just prior to the conference when they knew what the actual results where. Sounds like an ethics issue to me. Call me a basher if you must. You know I’m telling an inconvenient truth.