We don't know as we don't know how many 44 year olds were in...

We don't know as we don't know how many 44 year olds were in the study. If the study was overweight with 43 -44 year old indoor cricket team ya never know. You can reverse engineer with assumptions what number of participants in other age groups could create the result.

"So, did the p value shoot up to 0.051 for the age group 44 and above? I don’t think so.
How about 43 and above? Or 42? 41?"

If you are indicating that you only think the 41-45 group failed and all other 5 year subgroups passed I think that SPL would be yelling that from the rooftops !!! They aren't

"We don’t know, so perhaps viraleze is good for 40+. Or perhaps 35+. Perhaps even 30+!"

Lets be really serious - if viraleze for over 40 met the endpoint they would have said!!!! But no they said over 45.

"We do know it is not approved for under 18’s"

Trial was for 16 and up from memory

"For whatever reason, the company has identified 45+ and that still needs to be explained and charted. "

Good ol' SPL have had the opportunity to do this , include graphs and tables in announcement - they avoided this IMO - there is a hint . So Cheryl the new CEO who wants to put some points on the board with JF looking over shoulder and whole board desperate for any good news have decided to downplay results and not give shareholders hope? Maybe a conspiracy ? Hide the results so well that there is no buyer interest by specialist micro biotech investors who understand statistics? SPL are magicians to hide a good result from the market!!