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.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech failure, 2002 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (106)	9/16/2002 7:36:29 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 130

The only BS I could see is no statement that 57 days was a previously determined efficacy measurement date, or any scientific rationale for picking that moment. Is there more?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (106)	9/16/2002 7:57:34 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 130

>> Not as much as failure as it is BS report! << Yeah. Seems like that to me too. You can imagine two scenarios that would yield data like that, one of which is good (but hitting a very modest goal), and one of which is very bad. So..... why wouldn't they reassure us re. the "potential bad"? Truly leaves a taste for standard deviations. I hope this isn't going to be Levin's style, going forward. If you believe in 341, days like today can't be all bad. I can't get my arms around it.