RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I have complaints I don't mind reading tea leaves as long as we know that it what we are doing.
I might be wrong but my general expectation is efficacy develops over time and the reality is we are still early in the process. So not having something to say on efficacy is acceptable at this point.
Paul again said things are directionally correct (he said it about NASH). I read that statement to mean there's no need to panic (yet). They updated safety and generally what they said fits with safety being "directionally" fine. If they had said anything around efficacy, even just patients experiencing some stability for now then I'd probably be happy to extend directionally correct to cover efficacy. They didn't say anything on efficacy so I'm not letting directionally correct cover efficacy for now. None of this rules out the possibility of getting some efficacy by the end of the year.
I just don't believe they have anything meaningful yet because I think that would have been in the update.
PWIB123 wrote: I don't see a do-nothing approach as reasonable in spite of waiting on confirmation of certain milestones. There is a balance here. Your scientific perspective certainly keeps the scenario grounded in reality, but there's no risk-reward scenario in waiting for guaranteed outcomes. And thus, we must speculate! I personally highly value the reading of the tea leaves.