Replies to post #510013 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[pqr]

ATL/Ike: “In extremely broad terms, statistical significance means that it’s likely that something is happening, while clinical significance verifies to what extent that thing is happening. Put another way: statistical significance seeks to disprove a negative, and say an event probably didn’t happen by chance; clinical significance seeks to prove a positive, and say an event did happen in a particular, measured manner.”

[biosectinvestor]

“Clinically meaningful” being a very good additional modifier, in addition to “statistically significant”, that many forget to include when referencing the presentation. Thanks ATL!

[IkeEsq]

It is fine to believe those things will happen, I do too, they are just not 'facts' until they actually occur. You can look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

As pqr notes, and my original point, is that "clinical significance" is different than "statistical significance." One is proving a positive, the other is disproving a negative. The slide you quote does not indicate that the DC-Vax trial achieved "clinical significance." The fact that they claim the trial results were "clinically meaningful" and "statistically significant" does not mean you can mix-and-match the terms. I am sure that if they had achieved "clinical significance," that they would be saying that.

There is nothing wrong with having supportable opinions or basing investment decisions on them, I would hope everyone does that. I just have a problem when people state things as facts that aren't actually facts. Those attacking the company state opinions as facts all the time. Just look at the ridiculous Enron talk going on again right now. 'Linda Powers worked at Enron,' fact. 'She knew about (was involved in) the fraud being committed,' opinion. But both get stated (or at the least insinuated) as facts when tehy are not.