Power, it has been explained ad nauseum what the difference is. But as far as I am concerned, it doesn't make a difference. People can pontificate all they want on the merits of the molecule, but, in the end, as I have pointed out, scientists much more knowledgeable than any of us, understanding minutely the MOA, have failed nearly 100% of the time.
It makes one feel good, and it supports confirmation bias, to think that just because one drug is different, it will succeed. But that's bs. So far we don't have the data to know if it will or not, and just because the MOA is different, in no way does it indicate that it will succeed where others have failed, and, no, the science does not corroborate its efficacy--not yet, not from 6 patients it doesn't. Others ave pointed out rather clearly, through studies, that MMSE scores of these FEW patients could be caused by normal variation, over years. And, sorry, testimonies are not science.
So, surely, I could copy-and-paste an answer to your question, but I really don't want to waste the time. Only when I see efficacy in a large trial will I be convinced that 2-73 is different from all of the other failed drugs. And outside retail, I think it is clear that big money agrees with me. Otherwise they would be piling into the stock. I just don't get why this is so hard to understand, for those have followed biotech for more than a few weeks. Let's see, power. I could be wrong here, but let's see how much tute participation has increased--in a few days we will know. I say not much. We are getting on 15 months, new data will be presented in a few months. What is the the wait? Why the hesitation? Why aren't funds piling in? Some have suggested that there are no shares. What a ludicrous comment!
