does FLOW actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles. The claim: FLOW matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 22 months without either producing anything. What would actually settle it is 3 people measuring the same thing…
genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
the 11 week readout is different from the 5 week readout
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know Disagree on that part.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
the 18 week readout is different from the 19 week readout
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations