> The Nature critiques are less than convincing Out of curiosity, is there anything specific about them that you think make them weaker critiques? > either wa

> The Nature critiques are less than convincing Out of curiosity, is there anything specific about them that you think make them weaker critiques? > either way they are doing another phase 3 trial so we will know. As long as (potential?) weaknesses are not repeated; for example, if loss of blinding is indeed a significant issue and the second trial also suffers from the same flaw, then I think it's not unreasonable to call into question the utility of that second trial.