"What do you think Oncosil has just demonstrated? OS with...

"What do you think Oncosil has just demonstrated? OS with Oncosil is 16 months and rising compared to 9-11 months with chemo."

Gekko, it would help if you acknowledged that:

a) its not "Oncosil" compared to "chemo". Its "Oncosil + Chemo" compared to "Chemo".

b) OSL haven't demonstrated anything conclusively. The sample size is too small. Its like flipping a coin three times and getting three heads and then claiming that the chance of getting a head when flipping a coin is 100%.

But don't take my word for it. All we've heard from OSL re: BSI is "The Clinical Oversight Committee has determined that at this time insufficient clinical benefit has beendemonstrated to recommend approval.". They are effectively saying that because you only flipped the coin three times, we can't accept that there's a significantly better chance of getting a head when flipping a coin.

My layman's understanding of what the company is trying to achieve now is to get a bunch of highly qualified doctors to say "we're very confident that the 5-6 month survival benefit in the small sample size is not a fluke, not due to some other factor, but due to the use of Oncosil". But this educated medical opinion is (a) just that and (b) could have probably been provided before PanCo.

Stats are stats and my understanding is that the COC's position is something like "if you can't offer a trial which can prove increased OS in a statistically rigorous manner then we would need to see a far greater than 5-6 month benefit for us to feel sufficiently comfortable that its Oncosil providing the benefit."

Oncosil is going to roll in more experts who may change their message from "we're sure" to "we're really sure", but its hard to see how this will be enough to overcome the maths.

The question I have (and either OSL don't know this or won't report this) is whether:

a) COC has indicated how big the sample size showing a 5-6 month benefit would need to be to satisfy it; or

b) COC has indicated how much of an OS benefit would need to be shown with the existing sample size to satisfy it ...

I'm trying my best to find a reason to buy the story and the stock, but it looks like the company has used its $48m obtaining a sample size of 42, and this isn't going to get it to a position where it can offer a credible reason (ie CE Mark approval) to secure the funds needed for proper clinical trials.