" In the LAPACT trials the incedence of Anaemia was 50 % higher . This displays to me the amount of Chemo used was much higher than in the PanCo trial ."
So in LAPACT the incidence of Anaemia was higher, but the incidence of other conditions was lower, but then again the incidence of other conditions was higher... therefore the dose of Gem+abr was higher in LAPACT and that's why the LAPACT population survived longer because the incidence of Anaemia was higher in that population because that's the killer in the list... oh darn am I stupid or does that sound like a contradiction?
How about using the PanCO details from clinicaltrials.gov that states in black and white that the Gem+Abr dosage in the PanCO study was STANDARD OF CARE (as provided by Oncosil).
Are you seriously trying to contradict factual information Oncosil (the company you invested in) has posted to a regulatory body?
OSL Price at posting:
14.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)