Damn, you just "Bauer'ed" me, almost 4 years after the original...

Damn, you just "Bauer'ed" me, almost 4 years after the original Bauer statement.

I also just realized why you made your comment about being disappointed. This was the patent that got th3 whole thing started on the other thread, when I thought you were referring to the last one you mentioned during your conversation with OP. Apologies. Sometimes I read something, forget, and upon reading it again I don't even realise that I had already reviewed it. Goldfish. At least I get to meet so many "new" people over and over again.

I will go back to the drawing board, as I can see now (again) that he mentioned the correlation when discussing the improved process during ODAC - albeit not to such extent - running into Bauer's counterattack. Touché!
I see now why you conclude that the whole argument still possibly hinges on only 11 data points - and without further knowing which EAPs SI is referring in the ASX press releases I have cited, it could be either. There is a possibility that he is referring to EAP 275 same as during ODAC, whilst I understood it to be recent EAPs (generating new clinical data, that would however by itself not be considered enough to meet FDA requirements, but could potentially be strong enough to support a reverted version of the initial fine tuned hypothesis).

Let me get back to the drawing board as I am sure I can also get more info on the 71/51 numbers (51 may be the propensity matched figure after all - however that was 25+27=52 and 67%, the P3 GVHD-001 on the other hand had 54 patients recruited with 51 being evaluable, except it says adults and children and 001 were all children).

BTW, I was not and am not "forced" to credit MSB. Good lord... This is simply a discussion where the content matters rather than the correct title of a person, which subsequently was only of importance if you don't hold shares in said company. Also, so far there hasn't been a need of posting any memes to make a point.