Like every Cytoscam PR, this is meaningless without context.
What were the scores and how much improvement was there. 18/25 then saying "not meant for statistical significance" is IMO an admission that the drug was SAFE but wouldn't have achieve stat sig. Therefore, outside of Gaylis, who was given shares, and therefore the FDA would toss the data, who else is going to sign up for an experimental project that Janet Woodcock publicly shamed?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
