Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Druss who wrote (3879)	9/22/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Sorry, Druss, "poor to bad" is not how I would categorize this study. I think the arguments are compelling for a first study. I understand the rationale behind the study and how the second study will take over where the first left off. No first study answers all the questions. I do not judge a whole study on the basis of its abstract, either. I think p<0.001 for both of 2 different concentrations is impressive, even if the exact strain is not known. If I were skeptical, I would wait for the second clinical before shorting the stock, making up things about the scientists who came up with the formulation and calling something a fraud. I am not addressing you personally with the latter.