Do the numbers ( reverse engineer from announcement) and make some assumptions regarding 5yr subset participant numbers ( even spread assumption initially ) and IMO ( with disclaimer that small subsets are a statistical problem) that it would be weird that a single subset would affect result as indicated. Not impossible but I am sure they ran 10 year subsets and it didn't work.
Couple of explanations that could validate company statement is if there was a larger number of participants in that 5 yr subset and a significant number who were not compliant or very few participants in that 5yr band and non compliance.
However for non compliance of under 45 subset is odd IMO as it takes a fall off cliff number in that 5 year subset or all subsets below. So people make the effort to be recruited and participate and then don't comply? Was it one recruitment area . a natural disaster etc etc and why only affect under 45YO? Only study I have seen similar in was one which used military personnel for a large portion of study and when they unexpectantly went active they failed to comply with later part of a study blood testing so it can happen but it was explained in full in that case and was a known risk.
That was my thoughts and without further detail or data from SPL it is somewhat guessing but not publishing graph of overall data might hint at a ugly graph under 45. It would have helped if SPL commented in more detail about non compliance be it administrative of not completing survey or samples on time or actual application of Viraleze for example and if it was administrative why it wasn't resolved early in trial for example?
SPL Price at posting:
12.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
