$CLVS evaluate.com/vantage/articl... evaluate.com/vantage/articl... Looks like the same journalist who wrote the BS headline about $AZN $MRK Lynparza's label's supposed "strong advantage" has now backpedalled only one day later from his initial article publication to question the Profound trial's egregiously negligent study design. What changed for him to write two articles only one day apart? Sounds like he finally bothered to read some critical analysis of the study by oncologists, as we see Dr Prasad's podcast (soundcloud.com/plenarysessi...) discussion points being quoted in the follow up article: *the trial’s control arm “deeply, almost delinquently, inappropriate; just bad medicine. You might as well have given [control arm patients] a sugar pill, and neglected to care for them further.”* Journalists are truly incompetent, especially when it comes to the complexities in science, but this one shows a little more integrity than most to have provided a partially self-correcting follow up article.
  • 4