Thanks for the link to the phase IIIa trial - its very encouraging and pleasing to see that they are really advancing a natural and easily affordable treatment.
Regarding some statements of your post:
What did the leading trial investigator mean when he said that:
but results will be very good on the IIIa trial.
a) he is HOPEFUL/CONFIDENT that the end-results - after the trial will be completed in 2016 - will be very good. Which might be nice to hear but does not have any legitimate bearing/foundation.
b) he already has an insight into some interim results of the IIIa trial and they are already looking good. That should be impossible because the trial has just started and its double-blind so nobody is supposed to know how things are going until the trial is completed.
The p-value of the completed trial might look good for the PLP arm but the p-value is just a null-hypothesis test. Which means that it tells you that GIVEN the results of that study-arm, how likely would it be that there is NO underlying causal connection between the treatment and the outcome.
So its just a mathematical construct regarding the acquired data but that does not by its nature take into account how scientifically legitimate/good the study was done.
The high dropout rates would give a possibility to greatly bias/manipulate the result - I'm not saying that the results are actually made up, just that its one possible interpretation.
And because such enormously high drop out rates are very unusual and certainly not to be expected with a natural treatment I do think one needs a very good explanation why so many people left the trial.
If you are doing a none blinded study of a treatment and 50% of the patient are doing very well, while the other 50% are doing pretty poor you "just" try to get rid of as many of the the 50% of the non-responding patients as possible and thereby you raise the efficiency levels greatly.
When you do the statistical analysis, as if the dropped-out patients had never been in that study you get fantastic efficacy and very convincing p-values.
The reason why some patients "respond" to the studied treatment may be
a) the substance only works for some patients but not for others
b) the substance might be completely inefficient but the natural course of the disease (MS in our case) is by its nature diverse, so that some patients get better with time regarding ARR and EDSS and some get worse.
Regarding your regime, are you taking the 2g EPA+DHA as isolated supplements? As compared to for example salmon oil capsules?
Treatment: Gilenya since 01/2011, CCSVI both IJV ballooned 09/2010, Tysabri stopped after 24 Infusions and positive JCV antibody test, after LDN, ABX Wheldon Regime for 1 year.