ok, but then here’s the problem. Perhaps you can help me...

ok, but then here’s the problem. Perhaps you can help me understand. By meta analysis you mean the one Oncosil did and presented in AGM slides last year? If you go back to that meta analysis of all their selected trials they actually showed an overall survival of 12.7 months. So where did they get and why have they picked 8 months OS to compare panco trial with in the capital raise investor materials? Their meta analysis of selected trials also showed resection rates somewhere around 7.5 -11.5% depending on treatment type. So where did they get and why have they picked resection rate of 7% to compare with the panco trial in the same investor materials? These discrepancies aren’t because of typos. It’s obvious what’s going on here, nice try but it doesn’t look “kosher”. The other issue is when you compare confidence intervals of panco results for survival and resection which are wide probably due to small sample with their meta analysis it’s not certain if the differences seen would even be statistically significant.
ps thanks painai for picking up the same issues.