Ultimate choice of 176/180 was an educated decision...We were led to believe that patients observed within the first 184 patients followed by a criteria change in April 2014 and fianlized in June 2014 could support or power the trial with a HUGE reduction in the required patient count. This number suggested a minimum 20% absolute efficacy and the assumption that the expectation was even better and a higher number was chosen to cover the final absolute efficacy number.
The 5% makes little to NO CENTS, and we wonder why Dr.Spilker and the NR mention "within this sample size" on two seperate occasions. Why was the 243 chosen to report on? Why was the 18% NOT explained, WHY did Dr.Walker only speak to a "Bengarulian" that couldn't even accurately define us as a "medical device company"? Something stinks, and I'm betting that a odour eater may arrive at sometime in the near future. By rights the odour eater should return the shares to those that were spooked by a 5% number straight out of left field ( GO JAYS GO )
Sqr