Ann: Shareholder Update Q3 2018, page-17

It's interesting looking at the analyst report because they do the "dumb" calculation of weighted subtraction of the weighted placebo from the total trial to get 77.5% reduction in wound size.

They also mention that the trial gives 53% healed after 12 weeks vs 41% placebo. A naive weighted subtraction there gives you that the trial arm is 59% full healed vs 41% placebo after twelve weeks.

Now I've got a feeling that because we've got distributions we may have to be a bit careful about doing simple subtractions, but if a highly paid financial analyst can do it then so can I. So here's my attempt at guessing the treatment arm from the data we've been given. Warning this is probably totally bogus. I do know in the past other posters have done a much more thorough job of this and I respectfully invite them to repost those graphs.

Nonetheless even if it's a fudge it's not totally unreasonable: the green line is my lazily calculated treatment arm, the blue is the combined arm and red is placebo. This just emphasises what we already hope to be true: that if the trial is successful then there is a rapid increase in the rate of wound closure with treatment. if the trial is successful then you're getting faster and better healing.

Now as I say my statistics is horribly wobbly so I do worry that my simplification is in fact too simple; criticisms etc are more than welcome.