Recent post by biosectinvestor on iHub:

"No, this is false and the Federal Court opinion ruling that Adam Feuerstein’s allegations were false explains exactly why, which is why some hate it ever being mentioned. It says and confirms what everyone knows, that even if they did do an Interim Efficacy measure it is NOT unblinding because they are not unblinded by that event and all work is handled by a third-party and they do not need to be unblinded for that information to be known."

First of all, this clown has no life. All this person does is post on iHub all day long, every day. It's insane. Secondly, this is the same person who denied for years that an efficacy IA was ever conducted. This is the same person who said the lawsuit ruling proved an efficacy IA never happened. Now this person writes, ". . . even if they did do an Interim Efficacy measure". It's not an "even if". It's a fact. In the JAMA article, the company confirmed they did an efficacy IA as some of us had been saying for years. No apology. No acknowledgement of being 100-percent wrong. Just continued denial and excuse-making for what we all know was the impetus for changing the endpoints.

It all comes back to the same question none of the clowns want to answer. WHY did they change the endpoints? We all know they didn't just wake up one morning and decide they needed new endpoints out of thin air. No, they had data that told them the current endpoints weren't going to be successful. Everything they did after having that information was post-hoc. It's just not debatable.