RE:Response to PoC regarding post-hoc analysis/MACE RRR, ARRBDAZ, thank you for another brillant ind insightful post!
Thank heavens we have you to try to keep prince honest but there is no hope for that, although, every once in a while he provides some little nuggets to think about...and then correct.
(sorry Toniv if the % sign isn’t supposed to be there) - This funny. Good one. The % sign should be there followed by the word "point" in the ARR calculation. So in a population with a specific definition such as DM with CVD and low HDL you could multiply that % point number by the actual population to determine the number of people who did not have a MACE as a result of rvx-208.
I truly appreciate you keeping prince in line. While I do not have a problem with anyone being critical of RVX I prefer to see the criticism in a logical and accurate discourse as opposed to some crazy hyperbole put forward by poc. But, the world is made up of all types and the Internet is sort of democratic so let the game play on.
I almost wonder if poc has brilliantly targeted some sort of niche of readers (conspiracy theory type wierdos) that would find his/her/its post of appeal...almost like reality shows or something???
Anyway, I don't like to post like this. It is a waste of my time. I prefer the scientific objectivity. We all know that replication is required and we know the DM with CVD and low HDL population is huge. We all know that medicines are selective.
Anyway BDAZ thanks for your tremendous efforts to bring understanding and objectivity.
Cheers
Toinv