Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

But What Were the P-Values?

Are the positive data in the new poster merely by chance, not actually caused by blarcamesine; or are they statistically significant, not caused by mere chance?

The chance that chance, itself, caused a result is expressed in the p-value. Accepted practice in biostatistics is that results with a less than one-in-twenty chance of randomly occurring are presumed to be actual, caused by the factor being tested; not mere chance. The one-in-twenty validation cutoff, expressed in the “p-value,” is “0.05.”

So, in the new poster, what were the posted p-values? Are any >["greater than"]0.05, indicating that results may have been by mere chance? I scanned down through the entire poster and copied each presented p-value, all 13:

p-value < 0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
p = 0.021
p=0.003
p=0.034
p<0.005
p<0.005
p<0.005

Each datum is statistically significant. Each of the positive results was statistically significant; actually caused by blarcamesine, not mere chance.

Blarcamesine actually works.