Hi Roversfellas I did read the announcements, but as I said, I...

Hi Roversfellas

I did read the announcements, but as I said, I have read the PDF that was published back to front and it doesn't add up to clinical evidence of efficacy I am sorry. It is a bit a little bit suggestive. Unless the trial was pre-registered with the endpoints, then it really is not great for efficacy evidence.

In additon, to choose these endpoints post-hoc, which is what it seems, and then report values of a p < 0.2 is acknowledging the study cant really tell us about efficacy and is pushing the boundaries of exploring.

It might be why it was published in a relatively low impact journal (Impact Factor = 2).

I asked a couple of sensible and normal questions in the clinical trial world. If you these cannot be answered that is fine.

I read the clinical trial report myself, not the advertising spin, then all I am saying is there is not much evidence of efficacy at all at this stage. Doesnt mean it doesn't work, just means the trials have to be completed to show it does or does not.

I just take issue with the advertising that the trial shows positive results. I think 'efficacy trend' is a generous word.