What I am curious to understand is where the mismatch in expected goals or outcome was.
PAA clearly stated many times that stable disease was a good outcome. I assumed, wrongly it appears, that given Elancos apparent involvement in trial parameters that they would have shared that opinion.
It is now clear Elanco expected regression or at least a much larger trial number for stable disease. It seems this has come as a surprise for PAA.
How did the expectations become so mismatched, given Elancos apparent involvement in setting up the trial. Something doesn't add up.
Ann: Elanco Option Update, page-134
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 61 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add PAA (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
18.0¢ |
Change
-0.005(2.70%) |
Mkt cap ! $87.51M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 18.5¢ | 18.5¢ | 18.0¢ | $61.10K | 337.1K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 132291 | 18.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5¢ | 146840 | 4 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 15.58pm 28/08/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| PAA (ASX) Chart |