Ann: Headline Clinical Trial Results , page-16

Agree with all, lots of questions created by this annoucement:

- Test criteria - loads of references to 'statistically significant', - does anyone know what this is? Is it an understood % for e.g.
With placebo at 30%, what would be statistically significant? 50%? 90%?

- The secondary endpoints that seem to have done well - can they measure how well and are these then enough to indicate it is worth continuing?

- Dosage - surely the collective brainpower on the team could work out the right dose, converting from the last tests done via IV to the SC method used in this test. So are the suggestions that the dose was 'suboptimal' an excuse for Xtoll not being up to scratch, or an admission that they messed up the dose calcs? It's taken so long to get this trial to complete - is there really that much chance of error in regards to dosage?

- Do they have enough $$ to run a trial to determine optimal dosage?

And yes, - how does this match with the expectations of the scientists? They just went to all this trouble to issue themselves share rights - perhaps this was a surprise?