The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Phase two you start to look at what's the right dose and schedule. Um very very important to get the right dose and schedule and what's what's the right outcome? What's the right patient? who do you want to treat? And and really what phase two is supposed to do is with one exception, phase two is supposed to get you ready for phase three.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
phase two is supposed to get you ready for phase three you've got a dose you've got a schedule you've got a patient selection criteria and you've got a hypothesis of where this is going to be a drug that can be a phase two study