Hi Meph,This is my second attempt. I had an almost finished,...

Hi Meph,

This is my second attempt. I had an almost finished, somewhat lengthy, post that I went to backspace edit a sentence, and lost the whole darn thing. It happened to me before on a longer post (in reply to mac9 on MD resignation) and i got so frustrated I never reposted.

Thanks for the (entertaining) analogy, which managed to not only illustrate your point, but also answer my y-axis question. I always enjoy and value your posts and respect your logic/intelligence.

Some points in reply.

1. My initial post that you responded to was trying to make the point that 6 months into the HOPE-2 trial, the PUL 2.0 scores showed improvement (at a minimum - stabilisation) over scores at trial start, similar to ATL1102 at the 6 month mark (end) of their P2a trial. The 12 month results can’t be compared because the ANP trial didn’t go 12 months. CAPR couldn’t really shout about the 6 month scores when the trial had a 12 mth endpoint and this time was more significant in any case.

2. I assume you are referring to the PUL 2.0 results when you mention “stabilisation”, not the bio-analytical data on muscle tissue.

3. Wary of tampering with good art, but wouldn’t a slightly better analogy be taking 20 runners who all run the 100 in 10 secs (we’ll assume they are the same standard to simplify things) and all having a degenerative muscular disease (not very progressed obviously lol). We put 8 runners on this new medication and 12 runners on sugar pills. After 12 months, the 8 runners on meds average 10.5 secs for the 100m dash and the 12 on sugar pills average 12.8 secs (you were on sugar pills in this analogy unfortunately - whereas I got the meds). This is a pretty significant result.

4. Take your point on small sample size for both trials.