Feuerstein states: Generally speaking, efficacy analyses conducted on ITT or mITT patient populations are more conservative, more stringent and more reliable than analyses done with per protocol patient populations. When you omit patients from a study analysis, bias can creep into results.
The primary endpoint called for analysis at day 168. If a good number of the original intent-to-treat patients are no longer in the study for one reason or another (through adverse events, failure to show up, standardized data outlier analysis etc.) how can you include them in the analysis? It makes no sense. Feuerstein wants data where no data exists. The poster explicitly states that among patients with severe adverse events that there was no relationship to the study drugs.
What this amounts to is Feuerstein accusing the company of cherry-picking the data, a pretty strong allegation.
Is 148 participants the right amount in a clinical trial to get a result. Or is it 135 participants? or maybe 125 participants. Why not just an even number like 100? Some triasl have less than 100, others have more than 2000. I would guess that most trials end up with fewer persons than when they commenced due to adverse effects, death, inability to handle the trial or its drug, family problems, etc.
I suppose Novartis loved his article. I wonder who cherry picked the info for Adam F and researched for him? I wonder how much Novartis stands to lose in revenue if Arikace is approved. Tens of thousand of $? Hundreds of thousands of $, Or millions of $. Why would a Pharma want to see a competitor fail? What would they do to ensure that it failed?
The Street is not an organization of honorable members. Wall street = greed, especially when it comes to retail investors. Whether they are principals or analysts, they have an agenda on any particular stock they want to. They don't believe in Buy and Hold, but Trading up or down. Whatever suits their needs. To deal with the street, should be "caveat emptor". Terry and his minions are of the same ilk.