I can't seem to post the comments here (dumb yahoo filters). But go to the original article and check out the comments section. GTXi management provided the actual data points that Adam conjured up himself. Naturally his numbers were BS.
Here's the second half--
2). Adam claims: "The median improvement in stair climb power for placebo patients: 7.5 percent. The median improvement in stair climb power for 3 mg enobosarm patients: 8.3 percent." Again-- these numbers are completely faulty.
To arrive at this faulty improvement percentage Adam divided the avg. median change data in Table 3, by the RAW baseline data in Table 1. For example: 12.84/154.5=8.3%. In a vacuum, this simple calculation makes sense. But if you have any knowledge of statistics for a clinical trial, then it's naive at best.
Adam's problem is that his data from Table 3 (avg. median) can't be directly computed with the Raw data from Table 1. In the data from Table 3-- the average (median) percentage change is observed among individuals. Then each individual’s percentage change from that subject’s baseline is computed, then within an arm, the average (median) of these individual percentage changes are computed.
This average (median) change cannot be divided by the average baseline (raw wattage) of the entire group (in Table 1) to ascertain a raw wattage improvement that corresponds to this percentage change.
Adam is not a mathematician/statistician and he should not be masquerading as such. There's 3 things that could be going on here: 1) Adam is dumb. 2) Adam realized his math was BS, but still published it because he had some other agenda. 3) Both 1 & 2.
1) First of all-- Adam claims "46 watts for placebo patients compared to 80 watts for the 3 mg enobosarm patients." Adam computed these numbers himself. Well, I confirmed with GTXI management the actual unpublished numbers (mean baseline stair climbing power for the efficacy population)-- placebo 166.2 watts (not 46!), 1mg is 136.9 watts, and 3mg group is 151.4 watts (not 80 as AF claims!).
If Adam did the most basic amount of research, he would have found the real data points. Instead he used his "dull logic" to pull some numbers out of hat. That's inexcusable-- any half-competent blogger could simply contact GTX and get the data that was not published in the Lancet study.