Ok well at least you agree with dalts ...in your own words that data such as the pul2 chart you posted "raises your alarm bells" with regards to tampering with data.
cheers.
It would be good to hear your research on... eg. Why 2 of the 9 boys in our first trial didnt react to our drug, and if you think double the dose will lift results from (whatever % of boys) these two boys represent.
it would also be good to hear your thoughts on whether you think our currently recruiting trial will be selecting boys with faster progressing dmd as this appears the cohort our drug works best on.
id like to know if our first 2a trial consisted of eg 7 out of the 9 boys with faster progressing dmd or if they were a random cohort. If so, perhaps the one boy outlier who had amazing results could have been a faster progressing dmd patient, if this is the case, and our trial targets this cohort, our results could be seriously good.
im not sure if we can get the answers to these questions but if anyone kmows please jump in. These are very important issues I am personally curious to hear about.
i dont think we knew enough about atl1102 and dmd before our 2a trial. So if the 9 boys were quiet random with regards to speed of disease progression / decline, we could be in for a very exciting outcome if our current recruitment favours atl1102s best results.
For General Information, page-2477
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1,050 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
