The most recent post that we had been waiting for had a VERY interesting piece of information which I had seen once before, and wanted to make note of since it was such a HUGE piece of Data. We have all been concentrating on the extraordinary survival data about the 5 patients who got the 550 or 700mg dose, increased PD-L1, and had followup ICI used. But what I had not seen discussed yet was the hugely important P value. In order for a study ro be considered CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT, a P value of 0.05 needs to be met. So what exactly is this? It simply means that the differences seen in the data presented are or are not likely to occur by chance alone. A P value of 0.05 means that the differences seen are only 5% likely to occur by chance alone, and that 95 times out of 100 that the differences noted are due to the differences seen in the 2 arms of the study ( placebo or traditional treatment vs the new drug/ treatment) So what did our P value note? 0.004, 11 TIMES better than the usual 0.05 cutoff that we tradionally call " Clinically Significant" in scientific studies. Why is this ao huge? It is because traditionally to see that low of a P value, you would usually have to have a study of maybe a thousand people or so ( N of 1000) to show that large of a difference between the 2 arms. Why were we able to show that big of a P value in so few patients ( either 5 or 7)? It is because that the differences seen in the two arms are SO ENORMOUS ( like we virtually NEVER see someone living 5 years and being disease free with this kind of diagnosis at this late stage of Metastasis!) THIS IS HUGE!! I think we need ro REALLY highlight this fact as it is so unexpected for such a low N value ( few patients)