Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[loanranger]

Thanks for piping up. 6/13 does equal 46%. 46.2% in fact.
But the skeptic in me wonders why we have to rely on the convenience of the approximate result of the numbers that you have tied together. The conclusion that "They must have excluded 5 moderate psoriasis subjects as not per protocol" may be reasonable, but we have no evidence of it other than the less than perfect coincidence of some math, do we?

Maybe I'm missing something. Were you able to arrive at the 6 and 13 through the IPIX documents or are they based on the coincidence of the math alone? Other than the fact that the denominator couldn't have been more than 18 and the numerator couldn't have been more than 7 I couldn't figure out how to get there with any certainty....or why the raw numbers weren't made plain.

A statistical analysis shouldn't require a "They must have", should it?

Are you comfortable that this is the complete explanation for the delay?
"if we ever scrape together enough money to see them."