But calling their claim spurious because the 2002 paper did not focus on amplitude (but did cite the findings as Anavex stated) seems to be a dramatic over reach.
I did not call it spurious for that reason (well, maybe a little because I was stuck on that "never" thing). I called it spurious because they prematurely used non-significant data to make quantitative comparisons to DZP data in a wholly different study in the absence of a latency signal. I think you can count a number of scientific errors there. Subsequently, the loss of this effect at 6 months was in stark contrast to the DZP effects they initially tried to compare to.
I too would like to know what the latency values have been at later points. Part of my point however is that the finding of an amplitude effect without a more robust latency effect casts doubt on the finding...at least in terms of available past data.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
