when not if for pab now, page-20

Russian, your statement:

"fundamental to any research is the testing of any hypothesis"

Makes no sense. The reality is this data has been release before over 12 months ago, the authors have rehashed some of the chat around it but the data is old. The hypothesis is just the question they ask and can change at their whim.

What's your PhD in, if it's in biological sciences then you know that this study doesn't support the many posts saying it's a "game changer" or "guarantees the underwriting of the shortfall" etc etc. It definitely does not support that a survival benefit is attributable to the PAT-SC1, it may have made a small difference but this study is not designed or capable of showing it - more studies of a better quality are needed to prove this.

Apologies on the date, I honestly thought it read as first published online on the 10th, my mistake. Its a moot point because the data was released previously.

In fairness to the company and journal it takes forever for studies to be published in journals, after you submit a paper the reviewers send it backwards and forwards to the authors arguing over minutiae of wording and emphases (hence the subtle changes between the wording around the data). Even once it's accepted theirs usually a long queue of accepted articles to appear ahead of you.

I'm not on here to argue or get thumbs or for my ego, any Doctor worth their salt reading that paper will agree that it offers only the flimsiest of support to PAT-SC1 making a survival difference in these patients. It's certainly not a negative study, but it's not the game changer some people are suggesting it to be. I don't want your shares, I don't want to buy any more until real progress is achieved and corporate performance improves.