1. I actually do not hold any positions. 2. Why do I write to you? Because, ADAM, I do not like you. You are an arrogant, rude, smug little man who hides behind his keyboard. People look to you as an expert in the field of biotech. 3. Your opinions are not based on fact and have very little understanding of the industry. 4. I want to expose you for what you are. A moron that spins the truth and plays with people’s money. 5. So on a scale of 1-10 how good is AEN’s Study? Maybe a 4. Does not matter.
6. MEDICAL NUTRIITON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS LESS. DOES THEIR PRODUCT WORK? THE TREND WAS SMALL, BUT THERE WAS A TREND. INCREASE THE POPULATION, INCREASE THE TREND. WOULD IT EVER HIT STATICALLY SIGNFIANCE, PROABLY NOT! DOES NOT MATTER. FOR WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AND THE MARKET THEY ARE ENTERING, IT IS ENOUGH.
7. Would there study pass the FDA, Please. Again, they were upfront and honest about that.
SO ADAM, WHY DO I ATTACK YOU? BECAUSE YOU ATTACKED ME. SECOND, I DO NOT LIKE YOU. You sling mud based upon a real lack of intelligence and understanding of what we do. So, my goal is simple, I will expose you for the fraud that you are.
greg, you seem to have little or no understanding of this industry. You admit that on a scale of 1-10 the study was maybe a 4. I'd personally say 2-3, but in any case 4 is a failure. Then you say it does not matter, it will probably never hit stat sig, but that does not matter either. That is a completely ridiculous statement to make.
We are talking Alzheimer's disease here greggy lad. Elderly folks. Think Medicare greg. Do you really think Medicare is going to pay any kind of premium for a "nutritional food" that has not demonstrated stat significance in a well run clinical study? In an era when people right and left are looking to cut healthcare costs? Answer is no greg. Would individuals or their families buy it, assuming somehow you got teh doc to write a script? Hmmmm, maybe if cheap enough and marketed heavily, but again any claims that can be made are likely to be minor.
But for the moment greg, a company at this stage has to decide what to do next. Is this study good enough to attract a corporate partner to pony up some big bucks for the next study and distribution rights? I'd say no way at this point, based on the data shown. Does this result warrant the company taking the next step and running a much larger, and probably longer trial? It depends on how much it would cost, and what their other priorities are.
It's possible that the data overall look better than what was stated. For example, AD is a neurodegenerative disease, and any drug effect may take weeks to begin to show. So if there was a more pronounced signal shown in say weeks 17-24, than in the first four months, and it was consistent amongst all three secondary endpoints, then maybe that would be something to bet on further. But there is nothing in the press release or the cc that suggests that, and I would think they would highlight or at least refer to such trends if seen.
You see greg, unlike you I actually do know how to read data, interpret clinical studies, and understand the big picture significance. You can find trends in almost any study if you look hard enough, the question is do they have any real meaning.