if the first trial was a pump with exaggerated ie false data,...

if the first trial was a pump with exaggerated ie false data, how do you explain the follow up data? Well, perhaps we saw what we wanted to see based off false data to begin with.

I agree it's easier to falsify results in a 2a under one dodgy clinician at RCH, but the follow up data aligned with those results. To me, the most logical answer is:

Phase 2a was corrupt. Constructed / exaggerated results at a time when the company knew it had to produce a winning outcome and what better a result than 2 under zero, 3 on zero and 4 over zero on the pul. heck I know these results off by heart. Enough room there for things to go bad (but not this bad) but otherwise pointing to a blockbuster drug.... what a way to keep a company going for the next 7 years before the truth comes out. Perhaps that's why Mark didn't secure the funding for the phase 3 - kick the can longer and keep the payslips coming in... leaving a bunch of cash to keep the company going. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Phase 2b had:
a) poor manufacturing / out of date drug efficacy
b) poor administration
c) older boys selected skewing the results to show minimal impact when compared with ph2a which had younger boys ie 11 year olds not 15 year olds.

As you say Lockitt, truth may lie in what can more easily be skewed / corrupted, and I personally don't see Dr Voit at fault or the CRO's who do this all the time. That leaves drug manufacture and phase 2a BS.

It's one hell of a mystery, like a murder where each suspect could very well be the guilty one.