Despite a composite moratality range of 27.5% to 55%...27.5% being predicted at trial start ( come on kids, we're talking shock, not sore throat 0
55% analyst report ( where did you get this number friend, NOT made public )
I suggest we follow the guidance of our CEO, and the 45% conveyed to us at Rodman and Renshaw just last week.
Let's pray that the 45% composite mortality is just on the last 176 patients. In order to produce an overall composite mortality rate of 45% on 446 patients, the last 176 would have needed to produce a 66.5% or rounded 67% composite mortality. In order to determine efficacy, we multiply by 2 for a number of 134. We know the last 176 patients die at a rate of 62% (EAA > .6 & MODS > 9 ) when receiving SOC ( standard of care ). To determine PMX efficacy we subtract 62 from 134 leaving 72. Therefore if the 45% composite mortality is for ALL 446 patients, we have been killing 10% more in the PMX group over the last 30 months and 176 patients...OOOOppps that is NOT good and now it's received COMPASSIONATE CARE? I think you've just answered your question Beecher and the 45% over the last 176 with a 62% SOC death rate suggests 34% ABSOLUTE EFFICACY again. I ran this scenario awhile back and wondered how long it would take for the "card to be played" Looks like this angle equals a 2,7 offsuit draw...fold'em chief
I remain the Squire