Ignoring the CR for now, which ill pick apart in a minute. and...

Ignoring the CR for now, which ill pick apart in a minute. and looking at the trial results.

Looks to be only a marginal improvement over the first set of results - I was hoping for a greater improvement over time. Are the results significant enough to be able to commercialise? I have no idea, would think so as current treatment options are poor.

trying to make sense of the results to date. Despite some commentary that there is ongoing improvement, there is little supporting evidence in the report to justify this statement.

The original 28 day trial included 14 participants, one of which had no response to treatment (so 93% response rate), and another who had minimal response. the 28 day results reported an improvement from 4.4 to 3.6 on the averaging rating of severity of illness ( 18.2% improvement - of 0.8 points of improvement). We can state that the average of .8 point improvement is generated from the 14 participants actually came from 12 participants. This would then be something closer to 0.95 points of improvement from the participants that saw improvement... Why is this relevant, i am trying to remove the non responsive participants as this may be what has happened in the 20week trial.. And wanting to understand change in condition over time.. Hard to know an average % improvement, I could hazard a guess that the baseline for the 12 positive response patients was 4.3, as that is the baseline of the 12 patients reported in the 20 week trial.. So this is a 22% improvement in severity of illness at 28 days.

The new results suggest a change from 4.3 to 3.2. Which is a 1.1 point improvement over 20 weeks, or 26% improvement,

None of this is bad news, but its not a significant improvement. and what it does do, is prove that the company cannot present their data succinctly.