The market certainly seems to have ignored the CEO's quote.I'm...

The market certainly seems to have ignored the CEO's quote.

I'm not sure whether you're not understanding my explanations, Skint, r simply disputing them. Your last question asked me to explain the difference between statistical and clinical significance, which I did, yet your very next post trumpets once again how marvellous it is that a statistically significant result (albeit in 2 of 4 subsets of one part of an very long test battery) has been demonstrated!

What more can I say?

My previous posts, similarly, explained in some detail why I am sceptical, and make it clear that this scepticism:
A:Relates only to a pending "cure", and
B: Is not confined to Prana

As for improvement in the lab...mice got better, Skint.

Mice.

Clioquinol worked on transgenic mice, too, but the patients didn't get better (tho' as I recall, there was a post-hoc analysis (!) which showed a slower rate of decline in the more severely affected patients (Only. A result that makes no intuitive sense).

My comments have not singled out PBT as a failure, but have targeted amyloid-busting drugs as a whole as likely failures if failure is to be defined as "lack of cure." I remain hopeful that an industry partner will emerge for Prana......other amyloid-busting drugs are in Phase III, my views on their likelihood of success notwithstanding, after all....

As for you final comment, my recent posts have been consistent in declaring that I have no holding, and my sentiment (possibly of interest to those who DO hold the stock) is to continue holding. If a partner comes along, the stock will rocket.