Good point.
I thought it a bit more and partly changed my opinion.
All the "strong responders" (company's own term, much better imo than "super responders") can be within normal fluctuation BUT 5 and 6 points are actually already fairly big so I started to consider them a bit differently.
With those two or three patient I'm willing to admit that MMSE change alone is quite impressive. So that was my error in the first post.
What nevertheless makes it less impressive is that we don't know anything about them. My first post also included other link illustrating how AD can be improved with other means than just drugs. When you have single arm study you can do all kinds of things that may result better data even though they don't relate to actual drug in question. From the first post:
"In conclusion there are many ways that any single arm Alzheimer's study can have invalid or substantially unreliable results. This can happen either by accident (failure to control all the required environmental attributes, happens many times especially in outpatient setting) or deliberately (e.g. the company wants to have at least mediocre results so that they get more funding for further studies and to pay salaries etc). This can be done e.g. by selecting appropriate patient population where it is more likely to get at least slightly better results compared to average patient population"
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
