SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Colby who wrote (10997)7/10/1998 7:55:00 AM
From: DaiS  Read Replies (1) of 23519
 
Possibly another for Alien's collection.

If Leland truly said that Alibra is 26% more effective he blundered unless there is new data I have not seen.

The Costabile study at the AUA meeting had
376 men
187 successful with muse
a further 89 successful with alibra

Success rates muse 187/376 = 47%
Alibra (or muse) 276/376 = 70%

Therefore, Alibra can truly be said to be said to be -(1- 70/47) * 100 = 48% more effective than muse.

If Leland simply took a difference ie 70%-47% = 23%, he could say '47% men had success with muse and a further 23% had success with Alibra.'

Appears he chose the worst possible spin. Anyway on this AUA evidence he could truthfully say,

Independent evidence suggests that ALIBRA is almost 50% more effective than MUSE

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News