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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (10208)	5/27/1999 12:32:00 AM
From: dwight martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

To: aknahow who wrote (10208)	5/27/1999 1:29:00 AM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 17367

It is possible that of the 62, 4 were enrolled but died before getting to the trial center and thus there was no chance they received neuprex. Or it might be that the 4 were in addition to the 62, but died after enrollment but prior to getting to the trial center. I was told about the 4 but was not 100% sure about the exact details.

To: aknahow who wrote (10208)	5/27/1999 10:32:00 AM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

You stated>>>>>>>>>Seems he ignores the fact that the trial involved Glasgow 12-15 as well as 8-11.My theory.<<<<< I thought we decided it was even theoretically possible that all could of been ANY G score, ie. all or most could of been near 15. WHY? Because you already had 62 that died before enrollment so why would the others enrolled be that much more healthier G score wise? So would you agree that if most had high G scores that it would still be possible for ALL 34 deaths to be in treatment group? For example if all had high G scores and no Neuprex then could one double 34 for mortality? This is wild speculation on my part. Just my thoughts and opinions.