I appreciate the response, but your original comments weren't welcomed by many because they weren't grounded in facts or reality.
Regarding p value, your initial post said:
"The low "p" value also tells you that there may have actually been many non-responders."
That's factually incorrect. A low p value is indicative of more conclusive data against the null hypothesis. Simply put and all else aside, it is widely accepted statistical practice that a low p value is better than a high p value, and p<0.01 is a very small p value.
Your response said:
"It is good but I have seen better and combined with the lack of detail about the patients response leads me to conclude there may be more non-responders or low responders than many believe."
Reversing your position in your second post does your credibility no favors, and suggesting that you've "seen lower" doesn't either. I find Kate Upton more attractive than Jennifer Lawrence - that doesn't suggest that Jennifer Lawrence isn't objectively attractive. She's still attractive, and a p value of below 0.01 is still very, very low.
If you want to make a statistical argument about sample size, confidence intervals, p values, etc... be my guest. We can have fun. I'll give you a hint though... in small sample sizes, small numbers of non-responders have the potential to greatly impact the p value. That's one reason the stat nerds prefer larger sample sizes - they correct for random outcomes in individual observations much more efficiently. In this case (N=52), a significant number of non-responders would nearly guarantee a statistically insignificant (read: higher value and not good) p value. The very low observed p value suggests that there were very few non-responders. Again, you can choose to disagree with statistical practices, but I'll side with the numbers.
I also believe that the wording of PRs are very carefully chosen. That's why I choose to interpret the words that are said, and not dishonestly paraphrase to twist meaning. Similarly, the fact that they didn't mention a BLA doesn't imply that there "likely will be no BLA for combo." Omission of a direct statement in a quick PR intended to get the word out that primary endpoints were met on a trial doesn't imply a wholesale change of strategic direction for a firm that has consistently stated that a BLA for combo was a planned step. Well, it doesn't to me anyway. You can read whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense.
Regarding money, Paulson investors have consistently put money into the company. It appears to me that management was strategically raising money in small amounts in an attempt to minimize dilution and impact on share price, and they were able to get money whenever they needed it. You may interpret that differently, and I'll agree to disagree. I still think your comment about lawyers is baffling. Even if they were led to believe that they would be getting good news... that's exactly what they got. Primary endpoints were met. When did primary endpoints become unimportant? When did meeting primary endpoints in a phase 3 clinical trial become bad news??
Also, you mention in your response that there is "huge potential dilution coming from the conversion of the warrants just ahead". This signals to me that you don't understand the finance aspect at all - or you just don't care. In a buyout - which I believe that every person here suspects is the only way this investment ends positively, although I could be wrong about that - outstanding warrants are automatically converted. That means that on a fully diluted basis, those warrants already count as shares, are already expected to impact investors ROI at buyout, and nobody keeping score at home would count warrant conversions as new dilution. In fact, if you weren't already including those in your full share count, you should reassess your investment thought process. I, personally, would welcome the cash conversion of every single outstanding warrant, as it would preclude the marginal need for additional new shares (and associated new warrants!) that actually dilute the count.
I used to believe that you made some good points on occasion, even when I disagreed. For example, we've previously had exchanges where you suggested that the time YOU would target to get in would be after the last big dilution, and you were willing to give up the potential of a much better return if said dilution wasn't necessary or highly impactful. I get that. It's a reasonable investment thesis, even if it doesn't align with my own. But I no longer believe that you're the slightest bit credible in anything you say.
