I totally agree with you!

the way current trials are set up is to find what fails, rather than what works!!

Like having a race & if the designated runner to succeed, fails, then those who finished first don’t count???

That simplistic analogy becomes even more complicated when considering a first ever clinical  trial with a novel compound that is capable of hitting multiple targets!! The science backs that up & that’s how the trial was set up!!!

We are in a very unique situation and classical standards needs to be accordingly upgraded!! 

But I am surprised that the key opinion leaders/investigators have not catch up with the new developments. They might have, but they also might have their own biases???

Research & development is about trying many possibilities & finding what works!

It appears that the medical prationers, doing the trails. don’t seem to get that concept!!

Simly put, we have a novel molecule, capable of hitting  muti targets & thus trial was designed to explore just that.

So, why putting so much weight on the primary & so litttle on secondaries that crossed the line???

Doesn’t make any sense!!!!