@mozz i'm pretty much just like yourself and everyone else on...

@mozz i'm pretty much just like yourself and everyone else on here, learning more over time and just sharing what i've learnt. I'm familiar with almost all biotech/biopharma companies on the ASX, which is what led me to PAR, among others.

@5cata pretty much what @greatgump mentioned. The greater the number of participants the narrower the confidence intervals, the higher the chance of achieving statistical significance. The P3 trials have a lot more participants than the P2b trial, so the confidence intervals will be narrower. PAR met the primary endpoint in the P2b trial which was randomised and double blinded i.e. the gold standard. The key isn't necessarily what we think about the results, but what the FDA and the market thinks about the results. The good news is our trials have been designed based on suggestions made by the FDA and PAR have also released the market report for iPPS, so we have a good idea where we stand.

The aim isn't to create the perfect treatment or a cure. The aim is to 1) achieve the primary endpoint of "Change from baseline at Day 56 in knee pain as assessed by the average pain sub-scale score of the WOMAC® NRS 3.1 Index", 2) meet key secondary endpoints, 3) get FDA/EMA/TGA approvals and label extensions, 4) rank high on the treatment algorithm, 5) have a distribution agreement signed and 6) make revenue.