... so sorry, page-47

Hi Bragg,


OK, im no professional in science , just a humble pleb investor... but my understanding from my research and recent announcement and conference call :

The previous trial had larger sample size, different dosages, and presumably a more consistent group where cognition gains where able to be measured to statistical significance. However this trial was powered purely to find relationship of biomarker from Pibb scan against placebo - which failed as placebo reduced amyloid too.. I assume it was considered worthwhile biomarker trial at time of design as it may have offered more sway with FDA for next steps forward - without paying for a full blown study powered for cognition etc too . My understanding what they said on the conference call they were disappointed there were no stat significant cognition gains but that the group they had was not homogenous as would have liked so didnt help the data collected and doesnt negate previous findings.

The patients selected were very early and not showing strong symptoms, so my understanding as a non-scientist is it just may have been hard to get any stat significance in the trends, particularly if their initial symptoms were not homogenous - ie - my pleb interpration - maybe some had worsened cognition, while others worsened executive function but not both, so while both may have improved it cant be a stat significant result as not evenly spread improvements..

Its not time to throw baby out with the bathwater yet until we know more... Which is what i guess the team at prana are endeavouring to deliver.