I'm not upset and you shouldn't be amazed. I thought it was obvious to everyone that the huge move in the share price following the 6/17 announcement was based on this statement:
"Brilacidin exhibited a statistically significant (p<0.0001) and potent inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, in a human lung epithelial cell line—reducing viral load by 95 percent and by 97 percent, compared to control, at two therapeutic concentrations tested."
(Was it not obvious to you?)
I wanted to better understand the "compared to control" part of that and when I got into it a little bit (for the umpteenth time) you said "Well, that would be the point of a comparative study. If you are upset that an absolute study was not conducted, maybe you can file a complaint with the government." And you had a little company in that sentiment. ("Again, the placebo, more accurately the control is not a comparator.")
So now at least two people have said that while the Company may have used the phrase "compared to control", the control wasn't a comparitor and it wasn't a comparitive study!!!
My only point is that it seems to me that the market reacted AS IF those 95 and 97 percent "compared to control" numbers DID reflect a comparison.
"Did you read something in my post relating to the stock price?"
No. But you were responding to a question of mine that had the stock price as its basis. Your answer confirmed my feeling that the Company's PR in which they indicated that there was a comparison ("compared to control") provided results of something other than a comparative study...hence the market reaction may have been based on a false premise.
It is that misunderstanding that I'm trying to clear up. It appears as if I may be the only one confused by the issue....the use of "compared to control" to describe the results of something that was not a comparative study. Your input was helpful.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
