G'day @MongooseMan. Haven't got much time on my hands to keep...

G'day @MongooseMan. Haven't got much time on my hands to keep going back and forth on this with you. It will all be revealed shortly anyway.

Just one thing for you to have a look at with the dose escalating study. The optimum dose for all subsequent trials was selected as 120mg twice daily which corresponds to the maximum dose that was used on the dose escalation study.

It would be logical to think that this was because it showed the best results and the highest reductions in PCR.

I think what you're missing in terms of how you're looking at this data is that the "change in PCR" is what is more important. Not necessarily the absolute value. It actually doesn't matter if a patient sits above or below the line, so long as the patient is improving with time on the drug.

If you agree that the maximum dos is likely to have shown the best results (hence why it was selected as the optimum doseage) then I think it would likewise be fair to assume that the worst results were on the lowest dose. So on this basis the spread of results actually looks really interesting.

Take Patient 1 for example. Worst result is approx +80% and best result was +20%. You take this as a negative because they're worsening. But is it possible that as this patient progressed on the escalated doses that they started at around +80% and then gradually improved to +20% once on the maximum dose towards the end of the study? This is a fairly significant improvement IMO.

And look at the spread on all patients. We have no idea of knowing, but wouldn't it be interesting if this was the trend for all patients?!