I am no scientist or statistician but I do see this more from Bear's point of view. Statistics to me is more for post results rather than pre because pre has way too many variables. Although we have TLD, we still have very little of the results. I am quite fine with your statistical analysis iconoclast, I just wouldn't use my time doing it as there are so many variables and only one has to be wrong to alter the results. I think we recognized long ago that the MACE rate had to be dropping because it took so much longer than expected to reach 250. One might argue that it was drop-outs but they probably had allowed for a certain number after ASSURE. I believe it is premature to say one group dropped more than another. If, as posited, it was due to SOC (maybe but maybe not, just an example) improving, maybe it should show in all groups as all were on SOC. There is also drug interaction as shown in ASSURE where Apabetalone worked well with Rosuvastatin and not Atorvastatin so maybe SOC improvement might not be as pronounced in one over the other. I can't assume that it was just in placebo. Before TLD release, many wanted to assume that the drop was due to Apabetalone working well so would give fantastic results. I understood their wishes but could not blindly accept the theory. Too many variables do not let me assign MACE drop to any group. I will wait for the results but it is fine for everyone to have and express their own views.