astera

Firstly, having had a close look at your previous postings.... I withdraw the suggestion that you did anything wrong with information you acknowledged receiving prior to the 2004 results.

On the second point....with regard to the relevance of me presenting your pre-2004 results comments (and in relation to your bearish initial post this morning)....my post was appropriate in view of the fact that you are a trader , no doubt looking for best entry/exit points. That 2004 pre results post of yours was in direct contrast with your views this morning. You pop up here on the MBP board two years with an aggressive negative view......it was not initially possible to determine if you had accepted the companies explanations and ongoing test results, in the interium period......or, if you maintained a similair post 2004 negative view of the stock.

I would suggest - you got what was coming to you.

You have no financial interest in the stock....you cannot lose - others who are long the stock can.

But that is not half of it.

You make reference to old news. MBP management have addressed all the issues which you have made reference too....they have answered your concerns. If you have such views on the company - and you are so well researched, why have you missed the point, in coming on here to make those comments.

I would image you will be back...but please make it up to date in relation to this, from MBP.


CEO Roland Scollay....In fact, the results of the first Phase IIB trial weren’t statistically significant forthe primary end point. The benchmark level of significance is a confidence of 95 percent (or a p-value of 0.05), which would be accepted as a definitive outcome. The higher that percentage (or the lower the p-value), the more definitive the result becomes. Our first trial achieved confidence of 90 percentfor the primary end point, on a highly conservative analysis. However, it’s important to make the point that a related secondary end point inthe previous study had a confidence level of greater than 99 percent, so there were other indications in the study that the data should be taken seriously.

Having said that, the level of confidence you have in the data is driven by the size of the effect and how variable it is between individuals in the study, andalso by the number of subjects. The larger the number of subjects, the more likely you are to see a result that’s statistically significant for a given level ofeffect. In the current study we’ve substantially increased the number of subjects, and it looks like it will complete with roughly three-fold the number of subjects ineach group. The drop-out rate we’ve seen in the study is pretty much what theindustry would expect for a study of this kind. The number of subjects remaining in the study at the primary end point of 12 weeks should be sufficient to achieve statistical significance if the results look like those of the previous study. Then, around 35 subjects per group completed 12 weeks of treatment; now it looks like we’ll have just over 100 per group completing 12 weeks.