Your attempts to spread negative innuendo are going from bad to worse - ill-informed and half-baked at best.
Your comments re Advanz are ridiculous for 2 reasons. One is that big pharmas are successful because they are astute and prudent and do not sloppily 'give away' $10M on a wing and a prayer. They have tight due diligence protocols and it is these protocols - 'not suck it and see and who cares if we blow $10M' - that determine their investments. Secondly, due to the agreed milestones, they have far more exposure than the $10M, if those milestones are met.
Your comments re the data are equally absurd. It is not 'having data' that is important. Its how you interpret it and how you calculate the economic and health benefits implicit in the data. Advanz have an army of scientists, medicos and promotional experts at their disposal - resources you could only dream about. They have voted with their feet. You haven't. That is your right but I know whose path I prefer.
Next, your aspersions against the management for not publishing the p-values and standard errors are just plain wrong. They are provided in multiple announcements - including those on 24 Feb 2022 and 29 Mar 2022 and in the presentation at the Bio International Convention 6 June 2023.
Finally, getting your nickers in a knot over the p-values and standard errors is a red herring. You don't have to be Einstein to know that a small sample (as in most Phase 1 and 2 trials) is going to have very high p-values and standard errors. But that is irrelevant. Phase 2 studies are for determining 'safety' and çlinical significance', not statistical significance. That is what Phase 3 is for - to demonstrate BOTH clinical and statistical significance.
The beauty of the Phase 2a trial was that it demonstrated both clinical significance and safety. We know the drug works - and by how much it works on a statistically insignificant'' population of 7. What we now need to know, is will it work as well - if not better - on a statistically significant'' population of 74.
And remember, 'statistical significance' is not a positive in and of itself. It is quite possible, for instance, to have very low p-value (i.e. high statistical significance) for clinical benefits that are negligible and not even worth pursuing.
You need both proofs - clinical and statistical - but it is a red herring to say you need the latter in Phase 2. If you had it, in effect, you would not need Phase 3.
(20min delay)