Ann: Voluntary Suspension, page-122

DearFellow Hot RAP Cobbers,

 

Giventoday’s events it seems very fashionable here to speculate on the cause andoutcomes of the delay. So, being a very fashionable sort of person, I thought Iwould join you in speculating.

 

(1)Glass Half Empty -

 

Itis illogical to expect that a test methodology that works in Australia does notalso work in the US. It is correspondingly illogical to expect that the USresults are not also positive.

 

However,although the results are positive the announcement may not be.

 

AsI understand it, the main difference between what has been occurring inAustralia and what has been occurring in the US is the protocol used to obtainthe data. The current US study, unlike the former, involves the more complexWHO protocol methodology and, as with all complexity, it comes with a greaterchance of fouling things up in the process methodology.

 

Ifthat were to occur one would expect a delay past the originally anticipateddate of processing the results whilst attempts are made to first work out ifthe methodology matter can be corrected before proceeding to unblind theresults - it could be argued that we have seen such a dely.

 

Evenwith a foul-up though the results might still be of sufficient validity thatregulatory registration can be pursued. That would take a little time after theresults have been analysed to determine. So before an announcement anotherdelay might occur - it could be argued that we have seen such a dely.

 

Itmay therefore be that we will see positive results but that some form ofadditional or repeat activity needs to be undertaken before the results can beclaimed for US regulatory purposes.

 

Ifso, the glass isn’t full yet. More fluid needs to be added.

 

(2)Glass Half Full -

 

Oneof the consequences of following the WHO protocol, as I understand it, is thatthe results are examined again by clinicians 8 to 30 days after their firstdiagnosis. Patients would not be sitting around twiddling their thumbs whilstthis is occuring, they would be either getting better or getting worse(actually they might be resting in bed and consequently be reaccessible).Examining the results again at a later date correspondingly provides theopportunity to work out how accurate the original clinical diagnosis was ifaccess again to the patient is available.

 

Theobjective ResApp results are compared to the subjective clinical diagnosis notto an objective standard. It is an attempt to see if the ResApp method is asaccurate as a clinician, whatever that latter level of accuracy might be. Theoriginal clinical diagnosis might have been in error and this could becomesubsequently more obvious with the passage of a little time.

 

Ifan objective tester thought their method was more accurate than the subjectiveclinical result they might like to try to delay things whilst second diagnoseswere carried out - it could be argued that we have seen such a dely.

 

Oncethe data was unblinded and initially analysed it would then be necessary to gothrough a sub-group of the results a second time to see if, where available,there was any indication that the initial objective results were more accuratethan those of the subjective clinician. A supplementary analysis would thus becarried out - it could be argued that we have seen such a dely.

 

IfResApp were to find themselves in a position where they could claim that theirmethodology is more accurate than a clinician not only would their glass behalf full but it would be flowing over.

 

Sothere Cobbers is my speculative contribution.

 

I wish all my fellow Hot RAP Cobbers a safe andrestful weekend.

 

poorinvestor