Michael: Thanks for pointing out your correction. Lidakol does appear in a somewhat better light. Do you know if they published any numbers? If not, why?
It's nice for every thread to have a devil's advocate to stimulate discussion, so I might as well continue in my present role as such :-) . Looking at Lidak's wording very carefully, I offer the following possible scenario:
Let's say in this study comparing Lidakol with Zovirax, Zovirax healed ulcers in 5 days, and Lidakol took 7 days to heal ulcers. Doesn't look so hot for Lidakol, right? However, one can construct a statistical analysis in which you create a "95% confidence interval", in which you are 95% sure that the real answer lies somewhere within this range. This is very common in clinical trials.
For example, let's say you wonder how many times a quarter will come up "heads" if you flip it 100 times. You then flip a quarter 100 times, and you get 52 heads and 48 tails. Statistical analysis might yield a 95% confidence interval of 48-54 for the number of times the coin should come up "heads." So even though the "experimental" number of 52 heads is off the "true" number of 50, the number 50 does, in fact, fall within the 95% confidence interval.
Going back to the study, let's say that Zovirax cured lesions in 5 days, but the 95% interval is 4.0-6.1 days. Lidakol cured in 7 days, but the 95% interval is 6.0-8.0 days. Thus, it is possible that the real cure rate for Zovirax is at the very top end of 6.1, and the real cure for Lidakol is at the very low end with 6.0, and thus they may actually be the same. In other words, the 95% intervals barely overlap, so in theory they might actually have the same efficacy. But it is more likely that Zovirax is better (using my imaginary numbers above). However, you could make the statement that they are "statistically comparable," and you would not be lying, but you would be misleading.
Now this is pure speculation on my part. I just wish to make aware to this thread how statistics can be manipulated to create misleading statements, without actually lying. The only way to settle this issue is to show us the actual data. Again, we have no data, just general statements which, I hope you can see, can indeed be very misleading.
Charles OFF TOPIC: I have subscribed to BI Research for many years and agree that he has had a string of dogs recently. I started to turn against him when he dutifully accepted all of Lidak's statements at face value and did not question the possiblity that investors are being misled. I rarely follow his recommendations now. I have owned hundreds of stocks through the years, and my 3 biggest losers (80-100% losses) have all come from BI - Taseko, Lidak, and Quality Products. Fortunately, I have had many other stocks appreciate 200-500% to compensate (chosen through my own research). |
