Originally posted by TomBombadil
So there have been previous studies and ours.
It is easy, as i have lot of money riding on it to focus on relative score of the treatment to the placebo.
And if I want to chase why my shares are not worth anything its because that gap is non existent in the data we have.
but please try to ignore all the money we lost and think about the science for sec.
The most unbelievable aspect of the result was not the treatment effect but the placebo one.
Why was placebo on our cohort so damn effective. We pre-chose to some extent (the two week thing) people not expected to spontaneously heal. yet they did in droves.
Considering the results graph how much better than that placebo could the treatment really have done?
So i am searching for answers to that.
and I get very serious question I would like put to the board by anyone who is on the phone conference or whatever.
=================================================================
How bloody certain are they that when they unblinded the data they did it right?
because zero difference in anything but an overly good placebo result is consistent with a stuffed up unblinding. As then the placebo dat as report would have 2/3 treatment people in it.
yes that is insane, but so is our placebo group doing better 9with no causal reason) than historical data that was reported and represented as "comparable" .
=================================================================
If they did unblind it accurately how come the placebo group healed so well?
Is there a previously undocumented effect that when people do studies on VLU, that they tend to actually do stand treatement by the book and thus get better results.
Is that the explanation why the early 1 armed data got good results. They just did the standard treatment better (with ore care) than average.
If so perhaps we at least have message for world health services make whatever they do as standard care do whatever we did as our patents healed better than theirs.
Sentiment is actually pissed off/disillusioned/disappointed in people/ but none of those is valid choice
The heal rate was similar to the Harding trial. So if Harding had used a placebo control then you could expect that to heal at the same rate also. However their group had non healing wounds for 3 years with standard care.
Healing chances go from 70% for wounds less than 12 months to 22% possible if over 12 months. That's a Mangolis statistic.
If there is no mistake with the latest trial then the Harding trial has scam and fraud written all over it. To have done that trial without a placebo was part of it. All those experts and consultants in house and employed and they let that happen.
The new management failed to look into that trial in enough depth. I assumed they had, or it would not have been re-vamped.
People knew but kept getting their pay checks and research money. I seen someone pity those who have lost their jobs in the company. Gravy train.
I am under no illusions that anything will be investigated. Or Karma justice. Mercer is still sitting back smiling I guess.
