Like most comments on here then....
"..there are bigger things at play here than meet the eye."
I'm guessing that's just a guess?
Latino, That's correct. And it's important to note, as others have pointed out, that the approval does not demand NO toxicity but the understanding of any toxicity that may exist. Pretty well everything you eat sends the liver into overdrive but, given the risks of prescription medicines that already exist, an understanding of anything yet unexplained is what they are after. I'm sure this ab has a role in life, just not sure how we get there and how long... and whether I can afford the process!
... at these ridiculous prices????
...was a biggie. Good news in the offing?
Apologies, I misunderstood the bit where you wrote, "Always knew this decline was down to woodford. " as meaning you always knew this decline was down to Woodford.
But Shares_To_Buy KNOWS!!
You appear to be under the misconception that this is the fortune-tellers thread!
Delayed report so not sure about it being a buy. Price action would suggest it wasn't!
Yes Scott. Find a relaxing hobby. I've heard that some people find making miniature London buses out of old wine boxes a very useful therapy - you could at least try it?
A lot of them are just autos, presumably programmed to shift the price one way or the other, in the way the masters of the Universe dictate. Since we rarely know what motive is behind them (taking it down, stabilisation, or going up) we just have to spectate and hope. Certainly, as well-documented on this board, this share does seem to be one of the most "managed" that many of us have ever seen. Which raises suspicions but contributes little to understanding! Toss the dice....
Yes, it really wasn't much in terms of cash ;-)
AMP purchases. Something afoot? We shall see ...... Methinks ...... etc etc....
Jimzi,
I'm not sure this is about "finding" someone affected by expanding sample size but, instead, about using a sample size big enough to demonstrate the rarity of the said effect, perhaps to demonstrate that it is lower than 1 in 10,000. Since the rare effect will have a statistical distribution (Poisson probably) there are (rather arcane) statistical methods of calculating how large your sample should be before you can be, say, 99% confident that the illness is in fact rare. You are right in that, as the illness is expected to be rarer, the necessary sample size would increase, but not in the way you suggest.
They are giving analysts lots of notice. Be there or be square (=poor).
Didn't notice that one. I thought you were claiming they were changing the DNA code for "rod dystrophy", which would seem entirely sensible .... ;-)
I suspect you mean "ie" not "eg" in that second line?
And, no, this therapy is aimed at problems with the photoreceptors, not the optical system, so those of us wanting to throw away our spectacles will have to go elsewhere.
Well, it would be certainly be interesting to see the sub-group analysis for the excluded sub-group especially because I would expect to see strong interaction terms in the overall ANOVA. I don't agree the sub-group analysis is unimportant if that sub-group becomes a target patient group in the labelling. However, also interesting is the fact that, were the IDVU sub-group to have been the subject of an a-priori experimental design (ie a proper randomised, blind design,) then the results would almost certainly have been even stronger (confidence limits reduced) - for the reason that statistical significances are "harder" to achieve in post-hoc analyses compared to a-priori analyses.
Patience needed but that chart is looking interesting. When TMT and its derivatives move from the lab into the clinic and then the GP surgery, this could be priced in pounds not pennies IMO.
Well, on the face of it, those results look very good. The gloomy could focus on the presence of adverse effects but they are almost always present in a population and are most likely genotype-related. For example, I cannot use penicillin because of adverse effects but, thankfully, there are others available!