Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Pluvia's Fist.com - Pluvia's Plays & Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valueman who wrote (979)	9/12/2000 5:15:30 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1766

Why then, Pluvia, were reductions in viral load seen in patients who had withdrawn from ARV's(TRI001) or who had random ARV treatment(TRI003)? Please post the specific Trial Design of TRI001 and TRI003, and the reduction in viral load from each study. (When you can't produce that data, feel free to post that also.) 1. We do not doubt T-20 produces positive results, the question is how much of the positive results can be attributed to T-20. 2. Phase II trail design was clearly flawed, they used two variables, ignored the effect of the new anti-HIV drugs given to patients and ignored the results of J Durant's study. 3. You ask questions about a 14 day phase I study - TRI001. Are you suggesting the 48 month data from the one year T-20 Phase II study is less significant than a 14 day Phase I study? I'm not sure what you're getting at. 4. You also ask questions about TRI003 in which published data is limited to say the least. I'm not sure you can draw any substantial conclusions from either TR001 or TRI003 considering the information you have at hand. You do not know all of the variables in either study. All we know for certain is what I have stated. Phase II study design was flawed and Wall Street has wrongly attributed the positive results reported to T-20.