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 : Zonagen (zona) - good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr Logic who wrote (3914)	5/5/1998 7:14:00 AM
From: Linda Kaplan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

Actually, it seems from the posters that the criteria for improvement may have been much lighter for Vasomax than Viagra. We also don't have clear definitions for categories for Vasomax while all that is spelled out for Viagra. If anything, the degree of efficacy is probably far less for Vasomax than Viagra, than is indicated in these reports -- if they were subject to the identical criteria, the difference in the results would probably be greater than we think (Vasomax would be less efficacious). Linda

To: Mr Logic who wrote (3914)	5/5/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: LoLoLoLita	Respond to of 7041

Patrick, Comparisons of studies such as done by CalculatedRisk are termed metastudies: that is, studies of studies. Without having all the details of both of the studies, and a surety that the Vasomax entry criteria were more lenient than what was used for Viagra, it's sloppy science to draw any firm conclusions. Many here would no doubt find it hilarious to posit the premise that Vasomax could (or might) have been evaluated in a more conservative manner--that is, showing lower effectiveness than Viagra--because of differences in the two protocols. We really don't know. One thing I can assure you. If the metastudy in question were submitted for scientific publication, it would be rejected for the above reason. David