He's wrong, and this is commonly misunderstood. The trial was "not designed for statistical significance" because it had a sample set of n=32. This is just on the cusp of mathematical adequacy, generally accepted as n=30. And since there was a control arm, the effect cohort is actually n<30. So the conditions for stat-sig aren't really there.
However, the P300 metrics showed such strong effects with low variance to the ratio of effect (roughly a low p-value), the company feels comfortable calling that stat-sig. Likewise in opposite, the MMSE did not and the company said not stat-sig.
So if we discount the non-significance of the MMSE scores, we have to discount the significance of the P300 scores. The right thing to do is recognize the company is optimistic, investors need to be optimistic, and to turn now to the Part B results and hope we see additional, definitive, and sustained clinical benefit. Fingers crossed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
