RE:Measure of success
You probably meant "composite mortality is not a measure of success". But do you think what I was getting at was true. I am not sure myself why we are always referring to the composite mortality on its own, except for the fact that the higher it is, the farther we are moving from a placebo attributable positive effect of the treatment.
As for your figures, if you are providing them to point out the fact that earlier trials showed positive results "contrary to what I was implying", let me assure you I was not saying we are not having positive results. I am just trying to explain (and understand) what the implications of the 50% composite mortality figure are.
If I am not getting what you were saying, please help me understand.