banter and General Discussion, page-10182

JB's great knowledge of the potency assay that he claims to have is a bit short on facts like a chart that likely has the data of around 40 patients on it yet he says its more like 11 despite admitting incorrectly filtering 25 patients ( according to him only minor)

You are now doing what col69 does - you claim I've made a mistake to discredit but the mistake you are claiming I made doesn't matter - nothing much turns on it - and if you actually tried to plot anything like 40 (though its 20 max probably) to 11 data points onto an X Y graph you probably be able to see for yourself.

There are 11 data points. That's just a fact. There are 11 in the 2020 diagram used at ODAC and in the same diagram used much more recently in a patent application.

You argue that each of those 11 could have more than one patient behind them so each of the 11 could be more than one.

I don't think that makes sense because of what is actually being measured (the reduction of activated T cells in blood is what is being measured - if baby 1 had a 49% reduction and baby 2 had a 50% reduction and baby 3 had a 51% reduction (all T cell activation measurements in their blood compared with day before first treatment) but they all got treated with the same lot that had the same amount of IL2Ralpha inhibition, then I say I'd put the three on the graph, scale the graph appropriately and you'd see all three, you say, well why not average then get 50% and then behind one data point there is actually 3 babies. I can grant you your interpretation but it doesn't change much.

You know you can't have more than 40 babies in total and you know you've got to reduce them down to only those babies that only got one treatment (else you can't tell what caused the effect) and you know most got treated by more than one - so that's going to get you down to less than 20.

You assign those 20 (maximum) behind the 11 data points and then you have a line of best fit that takes into account how they spread out around that line.

That's how your theory of putting averages not individuals onto an X Y graphic would go right?

So even if we do it your way - when the same graphic appears years later - if the line of best fit hasn't moved and there are still 11 dot points (I say they a singletons - you say they are multiples behind some of them) it wouldn't matter though - because even a single additional patient put into any of the 11 data points would move the line of best fit towards it.

The point I was making is - and this doesn't matter much whether its 11 or 20 - there aren't any more patients years later - because the figures are the same - 11 data points on both. But MSB says the statistics under the graphics have changed. That doesn't make sense.