allotment, page-117

Yes, must say I agree. Trying that again:

Worthwind,

"dont blame the messenger"

I guess it comes down to the message. The selective harvest and culling of certain data on this thread is allowing relatively simple concepts to become clouded by debate. Allow me to make an example that I feel is indicative of the current analysis performed by both yourself and RGC.

You are comparing ACH1625 to BIT225. These were both trialled as an additional component to the SOC polydrug combination. The 28 day reduction in HCV RNA was assessed.

- After 28 days, the BIT225 combo resulted in 4.0-log reduction.

- After 28 days, the ACH1625 combo resulted in a 4.96-log reduction.

These figures represent the level of reduction when the drug is administered as designed. That you are able to somehow extract utterly meaningless figures that supposedly represent some kind of "standalone" efficacy from a combination trial is beyond understanding and has no meaning.

You have taken a real-world difference of 0.96 log and stretched it well beyond it's natural limit. Inventing a purely theoretical and utterly baseless discrepancy of that size is a clear demonstration that figures are being selectively exaggerated to provide a negative interpretation of the data, whether that data be real or something you cultured for the occasion.