Member Info for LimaLiam

Also, I'm buying 700 shares first thing tomorrow. We'll see what happens...

Love it to be true, but unless they are texting each other those numbers I'm disinclined to believe it.

Tommy, I'm on board with your logic here.

I dont think we can apply a distribution from one trial to another, but would agree that if SNG are allowed to combine data from trials (in the same setting) then there is a very good chance they get to an appropriate p value, as you demonstrated. Hopefully that can be used by the company.

With the dose thing, someone answered that (AZs vaccine). I still wonder about the change of device, if that precludes them from combining, but hopefully that's not a problem.

Let's see what we get in three weeks!

On reflection, I think applying those percentages from one trial to another doesn't work.

Maybe tomorrow we can calculate a range of percentages it has to be in, in order to get the 0.05 or lower.

Nice work Tommy.

That's a fair assumption and gives a great result!

Anyone know of any cases where P2 data has been used to bolster P3 data? Would regulators accept that?

I cant remember, did we change the dose between trials? Crap I think we did, and nebuliser.

Thinking of it, could that 'inferior' nebuliser have had a negative effect on the p3 trial?

Still great news, shows a very strong, very important signal.

Let's hope they can legerage something like this.

Would love that to be an accurate assumption!

We'll see soon enough.

I dont think we have sufficient data on SPRINTER patients receiving oxygen to combine.

But Synairgen do. So...

Yeah, an extra 64 patients could get it over the line.

Is there a precedent for that?

Wouldn't that have made more sense.

If I had my tinfoil hat on... but I dont.

Well, hopefully they dont mess the delivery up in may.

Or am I wrong...

No its a 50% rrr! At p = 0.051

Sh*t that's fantastic, no wonder they RNSd.

Have to agree with people who grumble about the clarity of RNSs here.

Trading, yes it looks like it was a deliberately misleading reading of the chart.

For those wondering, trading's 50% and my 33% are in agreement, percentages and Statistics.

Some assumptions were made to arrive at 33%(ish).

That 22%, is actually a 33%(ish) relative risk reduction. Basically the same as the topline results, but with the p value we wanted.

I'll take that.

Worthless piece of sh*t.

Yes, all of the above.

Alarming really!

Good to see you back.

Is this libel or defamation?

Anything yet?

Thanks Nolupus, that makes your point better I think!

Your point of view being those are the only ones that apply to this latest formulation when used to treat lupus, the P3 trial we are hoping will be approved soon..?

Nolupus, suggest you link to the patent you are referring to.

Hah, brilliant. I didn't know that's how it works.

Can you teach me more?