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.

Biotech / Medical : Neurobiological Tech (NTII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. John M. de Castro who wrote (239)	1/29/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: Peter Silsbee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1494

From the "Personalities" file: Dr. Stuart Lipton appears in a segment on CNN Headline News this week. The segment is about a standard stroke treatment (TPA ??). Lipton says this treatment has a potential side effect which results in neural damage (something to do with glutamate receptors --- sorry, I didn't take notes). In any case, he seems to be making the argument that there should be some sort of neuroprotectant administered in conjunction with the standard treatment. He does not mention any specific compounds, for instance, memantine. PLS P.S. Nice pop this AM, though 50% of nothing is still nothing...

To: Dr. John M. de Castro who wrote (239)	1/29/1998 11:31:00 AM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1494

I still think is a wrong number typo ( should be 0.01 not 0.10) and that is why they are saying "statistically significant". It is a big mistake to be "liberal " and call 0.10 statistically significant. It just does not hold. Maybe someone should call the company or PRnewswire. Maybe we will get 5 cents extra if corrected. The "power" of the type II is usually a problem due to the number of patients, and the percentage difference. But still it could yield statistically significant numbers ( of course the significance could be erase in a larger study). If they indeed got 0.10 and they are calling that "statistically significant" then I am very worry. I would take my pocket change and run. Not only is a poor result, but they are cavalier enough to call it statistically significant. Or worse they do not know that the usually accepted number is one in twenty = or less than 0.05. I hope for the wrong typo.