yes, great analysis, but why do so many people heed a charlatan like Martin Shkreli?
He is only a skillful gambler in promoting his image but ultimately he remains an sophomoric young man , I doubt he is able to understand correctly scientific articles, he copies something here an there showing it as his expertise.
A waste of time for all and a risk for suckers.
Said that,the drugs trials are suited for every kind of speculations and uncertainties and then for any kind of play. This is a good reason to avoid messy windbags and base your choices on in-depth DDs.
Note that Martin S posted only the negative data of the Jama article forgetting the good data in children and in HU groups, exactly that EPIC is.
Incompetence or misinformation? Likely both. Luckily his tweets can't change a thing of the results and of the PPS after data readout. He is a desperate social climber.
EPIC is based on 2 very large "sub groups" or better is based on the reduction of a particular sub group: adults not taking HU.
Marty and Adam short all small biotechs because the P3 in small biotech often fail. No intelligence nor competence.
Martin S . furthermore for MSTX used only the bad side of previous P3 , typical dishonest reasoning to support his opinion.
for Vepo the change is insignificant.
Politically and economically for the world is not good for the West very bad. , maybe Chinese and Russian are happy to count always more.
For the Great Britain now the risk is to become the Little Britain . My hope is that Scotland and Ireland ask to join EU leaving Britain.
but it will be very difficult to control a company from a prison cell. LOL
I argued with him on twitter ,I have no idea who he was,but he seemed to me an incompetent and a fixer, I'm not surprised reading his file.
If you want gain it's enough do the opposite he does
yes,yahoo board cuts the message on symbols 'greater', 'smaller'.....
FDA requires a p-value under 0.05 for approval (with some exceptions)
p-value is a statistical index that represents the unreliability of the result, so smaller it is better is.
The p-value depends on how big is the difference between the 2 groups (placebo and drug) and how numerous are the 2 groups.
e.g. a 10% of reduction can give a bad p-value with 200 patients but a good p-value with 400, for this reason greater is number of the patients better is.
EPIC with 388+ patients is quite secure and can permit also to validate subgroups and secondary endpoints. IMO
remember that EPIC is a redesign of a trial, then it is optimized in which it was weak, but above all it is a redesign substantially limited to subgroups that already showed results statistically significant.
Usual reasoning about P3 is unsuitable here.
LOL, Shikreli the last clown 'Pharmaceutical Entrepreneur' that to bash Mast published an half figure of Jama 2001 article, shame it's the wrong part !
Sure enough the bottom part of same figure shoved the stunning results of P188 in children with a p-value = 0.007 reached with ONLY 73 patients! Let's imagine with 388 pts how stellar could be the results!
I don't disapprove negative opinion on EPIC but I disapprove the dishonesty of crafty people that consciously use to do it wrong data.
Lock -unlock the steering wheel of the minivan ,(database soft lock) and Mast people help the driver, then they are waiting for something that when it happens is very good.
From Ceo corner:
" We then will work with the study’s independent biostatistics team to conduct a “soft” database lock followed by final QC procedures and “hard” database lock, ..."
Could this be the dream interpretation?