I hope this is a magic bullet but I'm not sure how confident this makes me. The original results are just being hiddin within the larger data set by combining non-inflamnatory and inflamnatory data. I get that this is a "clinically meaningful measurement that dermatologists use" but then why wasn't this used as the measurement / primary end point in the first place?
Not downramping. I have a lot riding on BOT as I'm sure others do too. Just feels like they're massaging the data to tell the story the need. Very glad if someone can explain to the contrary
Ann: Cowen Conference and Additional BTX 1503 Data Analysis, page-18
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 48 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 BOT (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
34.3¢ |
Change
0.023(7.03%) |
Mkt cap ! $627.0M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 33.5¢ | 34.8¢ | 33.5¢ | $1.658M | 4.890M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | 121970 | 34.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 34.5¢ | 467576 | 10 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 11.58am 14/11/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| BOT (ASX) Chart |