Ffs, we waited all this time for trial results on only 47 participants!
And I was told it was a very large trial. Mistrust has returned.
More issues on their language for me. 'Superior' and 'significant improvement' are descriptive words open to interpretation. FACTS are in the actual scores which they've chosen to omit.
So it's a safe assumption those scores are not particularly good. The fact that again Quality of Life & Sexual Satisfaction are noted ahead of UI improvements, a change from past language, to my mind supports this view.
Using pad weight as a guide there is no difference between the Control group and PeriCoach users. Yet somehow (they don't reveal how) they've concluded Peri users are twice more likely to achieve a 30% or better reduction. Can someone explain that for dummies like me please.
They are not saying any participants actually achieved that 30% mark; but in the same paragraph state PF measurements by Oxford Scale are not linear as many women stay at mid level for long time periods. I'm a peasant not a scientist and unless one of you can interpret for me wtf that means and it's relevance I'll conclude they're trying to baffle us with bullshit.
I see nothing to support the idea PeriCoach will be mandatory before last resort surgery.
No timeframe given for essential V3 consumer studies.
We're not going anywhere soon.
ALT Price at posting:
0.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
