Thank @Vivo. Very helpful. But My question to @contrapuntal...

Given you only cited Corporate Connect report, are you now (in your last post) only assuming or deducting from only that report, that primary endpoint was not significant?

I valued your first post as it provided a debate, but your second point needs clarification/justification (appart/separate from @Vivo's response). Trial reporting rules ARE important to know about (hence my appreciation for your initial post) BUT my question now (after your 2nd post) is how you arrived at your assumption/deduction based on citing one report, the Corp Connect, which based on my understanding is not a (let alone the) scientific report and does not yet have access to data.

Keen to know, as we appreciate knowledge based and researched input, positive or negative, but hopefully not down or up ramping. So, be great to value your post by give it credibility.

Thank @Vivo. Very helpful. But My question to @contrapuntal remains from the point of view of method of conclusion, which seemed based one a pre-scientofic finance report, which I understand would simply not have access to the information (on primary end points), and not that primary endpoint point has not been significant or in general invalid as he/she seem to suggest.

Many thanks to both though.