JW ...1st well researched post I've read on the P3 trials (since...

JW ...1st well researched  post I've read on the P3 trials (since Teva exit) . Its not who wins the battle ..BUT the war. Its ALL available for people that what to dig down and do there detailed research. So the following is my reading and opinion.

The truth as to Tevas decision  and right to exit has to do with surrogates - YES ....

...BUT if you understand the arrangement b/w TEVA and MSB (subject to change and amendments from original CEPH agreement)  - it would have nothing to do with a review of the 1st interim results ( due 1st QRT 2017 and the no/go decision - as previously advised by MSB) OR any advise TEVA received about the interim  results from Independently appointed experts ...given that the 1st interim results are due 1srt QRT 2017.

This time has not come ...SO 1st INTERIM results are not the reason. Also if there was an independent review (Positive / negative) ...this would need to be communicated  to TEVA and MSB must report same to mkt - clearly this did not happen. So MSB are genuine when they say "no one has seen the results" other than the DMC who recommended as recently as Oct 2016 that the study should continue according to its protocol.

The above is not saying that P3 will be successful  .. - this remains to be seen by the presentation and independent analysis of the 1st Efficacy results in QRT 1 2017.

What I'm saying is if you understand the arrangements TEVA's exit can have nothing to do with any independant analysis of the 1st Efficacy results in QRT 1 2017 (but yes surrogates and changes to the original agreement).

Question - why would you want to change an original agreement ? ( because I can little sister).


All in my opinion. Please DYOR.

GLTAH.