Kind of like the "errors" in hcq tests where they overdosed and declared it dangerous, and started too late and declared it ineffective. It's easy to perpetrate frauds when your reviewers are in on the scam. Or maybe they're just 8ncompetent.
Brian, on page 80 there is a line item: "Had other important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2". This was the line item that caused the most consternation because of the large difference between the arms (240 treatment 60 placebo). I didn't see a breakdown of the causes for this... did you?
Kind of like the "errors" in hcq tests where they overdosed and declared it dangerous, and started too late and declared it ineffective. It's easy to perpetrate frauds when your reviewers are in on the scam. Or maybe they're just 8ncompetent.
Brian, on page 80 there is a line item: "Had other important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2". This was the line item that caused the most consternation because of the large difference between the arms (240 treatment 60 placebo). I didn't see a breakdown of the causes for this... did you?