RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bagholder, bagholder, bagholder...Yea, ture.....
Imean, this is how I think of it, rigjtly or wrongly....
Yes, Ph III was below Ph II, but thats why we do larger control PhIII trials, and dont rely on Ph II for filing. Fact is, Ph III could have shown 5% response, and that would have been the disaster {see PBYI US after ASCO in June for what market does when Ph III underwhelms following promising Ph II)
So the bright spot is that it was lowrr, but it was still very clinically significant, and thats where I have to see it as promising, overall.