BOT 1503 Study Analysis, page-17

Nice way to throw in some buzz/shock words and bold underline your negative statements to scare readers. This isn't analysis at all, you're just cherrypicking the negative words and using half of them out of context.

OP has:
> dismissed all positive aspects of results. Disregards the secondary endpoint calling it "not of primary concern". Also disregards resounding Australian trial success.
> falsely called the drug a failure. You can decide who is more likely to be right about this, our pseudo-intellectual friend or the directors at BOT who are proceeding to Phase 3 with BTX1503.
> taken a weak appeal to authority to disguise the lack of real analysis.
> provided a non-sensical explanation for the questionable USA results.

"When people are being observed by external people, they start paying more attention to what is being observed. In this case, the US participants who had the placebo/ vehicle may have been paying more attention to their skin acne management than the background population."

I strongly disagree, this is just a laughable statement. Medical tests screen for subjects with drug use that introduce variability, so this is already unlikely. Furthermore, a 46% improvement is not something a subject would experience just because they start to feel self concious and try a bit harder with other measures. Logic would state that if an individual had a way to improve their skin condition by 50% available to them, and they cared enough to participate in acne med trials at dermatology clinics, that they would have already done that and fixed their skin by now. I assume the follo-won argument would be that 'people in the US care more about how they look than in Australia" because this silly idea is completely irregular between the two countries.

There are a lot of ways the vehicle could have performed so well: different supply for AUS/US (as stated by BOT), dietary difference, weather/geographical difference, inconsitencies in procedure/measurement/direction between the countries, observer bias. But of all the ways I could imagine these results came about, USA subjects feeling insecure and halving their acne independent of the trial is one that you'd have to be a donkey to believe.

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-botanix-announces-btx-1503-data-and-progression-to-phase-3.5026520/page-4#post-41018953

Here is my own analysis of the result, and the positives/negatives that I see. Don't let the flurry of down-rampers shake you. A lot of people are pretending to understand this when all they are doing is skimming for "negative", "failure", or "insignificant" then copying that into their comment without bothering to read.