SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (10212)5/27/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: Robert K.  Respond to of 17367
 
Here is my thinking. We know the normal death rate could be from 10
to 50% with a most probable figure of perhaps 30% for high glascows.
If you take the 395 enrolled and add the 62 (prior to enrolled) then you have a total of lets say 450 or so that would have been enrolled.
Of that 450 the number that died is 34 plus 62 for total of about 100.
So 100/450 would produce a mortality rate of 22% (est). That would be likely IMO in normal circumstances. So you might see 22% died pretreatment and posttreatment AND 8% died treatment. Then too you have the placebo's to account for in that 8% group. So if bpi did cause zero deaths than 8% times two = 16% mortality in the kids would made it past the first 6-8 hours in the ICU without bpi. The catch is what if the kids that normally die in the aweful disease, normally do so in the 1st
6-8 hour period prior to icu or prior to admission. This is the ONLY scenario that I can concieve(IMO) that could explain away why it might not be bpi doing the magic. So in conclusion, unless the deaths are normally grouped in the early part of the admission process, than one would have to strongly think its the bpi. However one cannot rule anything out and coming results will tell the true tale. I refer back to the 4 cases in the meningo patent until then. I just threw these number out there for discussion. I may have figured wrong.
All discalimers always apply.