Terang,
thanks for the heads up....much to chew over
also, includes this definition of efficacy:
![]()
So two-thirds of the way to efficacy.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is some sign of a drop in viral load in cohort 3, but they want to see how sustained it is....also wouldn't want to go off half-cocked on the basis of two subjects, only have the results contradicted in cohort four.
We wait - but the signs are good
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?