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 : Pharmos (PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (1308)	11/22/2004 12:14:28 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

Commentary on the Pharmos CABG trial results: First, the numerical results are, sadly, about what I expected - not meaningful. They found something in one particular test, but that is about what you'd expect from random chance in a data mining Phase II where probably 50-100 things are looked at. So based on this trial I can't tell whether Dex is efficacious. Second, the real thing I was looking for in these results was some indication that Pharmos isn't reading too much into these results and has learned some lessons. On the first I suspect that they are indeed reading this somewhat(!) correctly - they are not glowing, but I think they are still reading too much into the positive Stroop Test and ignoring trends elsewhere (the history of previous trials is that one finds decline in trail making, another in word memory, another in ... and yet another finds nothing at all - as you'd expect from a set of trials with typically 50-150 people and 15-20%(?) have strokes that are randomly distributed.). I would have hoped that they would understand better than I think they do that they need to also look at items where there was a trend (e.g. p<0.2) in favor of Dex. On the second, lessons learned, I had hoped that they would learn about how difficult it is to make these tests - that without the right protocols for testing the variability is huge making it very diificult to find any effects (but, realistically, I guess I shouldn't see this level of detail until a paper or presentation comes out.) All in all, about as expected - albeit still leaning towards a little on the worse than expected side. C'est la vie. Shouldn't be read to change the predictions the P III on TBI. Clark