"Hulme was emphatic though that he wasn't expecting history to...

"Hulme was emphatic though that he wasn't expecting history to predict the trial result, stressing: 'This time it looks highly likely that the result will be positive.'"

And on what basis has Dr Hulme arrived at the conclusion that the results will be highly positive???? What do you define as 'highly' positive???? He must have been the same person who advised MBP on how to interpret their stats from the first phase II trial "P value 0.05? No problems, just lie to the marketplace that the trial was a success (MBP's announcement claimed this in the headline) by going against worldwide scientific convention of requiring a P value of under 0.05 to claim statistical significance. And while you're at, just ignore your secondary analysis on the rate of weight loss (which still leaves me in hysterics that they made so much of this when the primary outcome measure of total weight loss was no different between the dosage levels). At both a low and high dose, rate of weight loss had a P value under 0.05, but they choose to 'ignore' the higher dosage level when they made the pitch to the market to get more funding that low doses are required for efficacy. You can't have your low-fat cake and eat it do by cherry picking your results!

Those holding MBP are playing a dangerous game. While there may be a small chance the results of the repeat phase II come out positive, based on the terrible results obtained in the first trial where all that was really occurring was likely normal experimental 'noise' called biological variation then this baby will plummet like a stone post announcement.