RE:RE:Seeking AlphaThe author's argument is that the samples are too small to draw conclusions about the efficacy of pela.
He only looks at sample size and neglects the notion that we have a series of studies (at least 2) in both mBC and panc that showed the same kinds of remarkable results. That is an important point. Also he is implying that they do not have statistically significant results. I cannot remember if that is true, but I do know we have wildly better results than SOC on panc and similar results to SOC on mBC.
He says the results may be noise. What he means is a statistical fluke, that would go away in larger samples. But doing the studies twice is far more convincing.
So his arguments are simply saying the results are not proven yet. That is what ph 3 studies are for.
He also neglects the safety profile and versatility of pela.
Finally he neglects the Pan Can endorsement of pela for their onging panc p3.