Ann: PharmAust's Phase 1 Study Data Presented at Major Conference, page-17

Statistical Significance is what Big Pharma like to have in the data.

From a quick Google research ,, PAA would have from the 12 original participants circa a 5% chance that a continued trial exactly the same as the previous Phase I of not delivering the same phenomenal results , and a 95% chance of delivering the same phenomenal results..

If you strip away all the Science ,, purely focus on a tangible visual result ,, 11 Patients are still alive beyond the life expectancy of a Progressive Neurological Disease.

@Buckland was it you that posted the timeline of patients prior to entering the Trial from actual diagnosis?

if so can you please update the data and repost , accounting now for an additional 3 months since the phase I was released.

In the simplest of terms ,, there is a 95% probability that all 11 Patients had they not been on MPL would regrettably mathematically be no longer with us.(for those that have been diagnosed prior to 1/6/2021)

One of the common problems faced by readers (and authors!) of medical articles is in the interpretation of the word “significance.” The term “statistical significance” is often misinterpreted as a “clinically important” result. The confusion stems from the fact that many people equate “significance” with its literal meaning of “importance,” whereas in statistics, it has a far more restrictive connotation. This article explains the idea of the statistical significance and differentiates it from clinical relevance or importance, which is an entirely different concept. In the previous article, in this series, we looked at different ways of expressing statistical significance (“P” values versus confidence intervals).[1] Measures of statistical significance quantify the probability of a study's results being due to chance. Clinical significance, on the other hand, refers to the magnitude of the actual treatment effect (i.e., the difference between the intervention and control groups, also known as the “treatment effect size”), which will determine whether the results of the trial are likely to impact current medical practice. The “P” value, frequently used to measure statistical significance, is the probability that the study results are due to chance rather than to a real treatment effect. The conventional cut off for the “P” value to be considered statistically significant is of 0.05 (or 5%). What a P < 0.05 implies is that the possibility of the results in a study being due to chance is <5%.

So it would seem that if PAA Trialed on 60 Patients (5 x the original 12) they would have Statistically Significant Data... and BP would be paying a significant Premium ,,, the more risk removed the greater the value ,,, and as Roger stated ,, the stronger the data , the greater the value ..

Management are already demonstrating that MPL can be Manufactured in large Batch quantities , this is significant so that large scale costings can be produced , PAA already know how to manufacture at scale , Syngene in India producing the base compounds and Catalent actually manufacturing the Tablets.
,
PAA have also established they can ship MPL Tablets and we know the Tablets have a shelf life of over 3 years.. This is all incredibly valuable information for BP as it save TIME and delivers Certainty.

In reality PAA have the Cart before the Horse with actual Commercially Run Market Ready Product.
I was on another Biotech "Parkinsons Implant" the Implant was $26,000 designed in the lab , becasue of the amount of Human Intervention required "Hands on " they could not reduce the cost... and this took 2 weeks to produce one capsule.

You can be sure as soon as the new BOD have funding solutions in hand they will make a market announcement ,, they understand the market and are SH also so dont like to see SH value erode ,,, NZT