InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

JRoon71

01/02/24 6:50 PM

#419738 RE: Laurent Maldague #419737

Laurent, agreed. It's possible that there was just not enough separation in 18 months to be "meaningful".

What is unfortunate, is that this does not reflect the possibility that years of EPA/IPE consumption could have a positive impact on those biomarkers and cognitive function.
icon url

Jasbg

01/02/24 6:56 PM

#419740 RE: Laurent Maldague #419737

Laurent M.

I believe most of the recent headline making Alz trails these past years have been in patients with mild cognitive decline, and "success" is measured by how much they slow that decline, rather than actual improvements to cognition.


I believe you are way of target here - do you have any relatives fighting the decease I wonder ?
-------------------------------------------

Everything is about SLOWING the decline - in the end we all die (or most of us anyway).

It is '95% nonsense talking about' Improving Cognization for people at risk of AZ.

It ALL about saving who 'THEY WERE / ARE long as possible,

The rest is just the endless biolabs trying to make 'living' - Inventing "Drugs" - that will recover lost braincells. Not Likely to happen in the 'real world' !
icon url

exwannabe

01/02/24 7:04 PM

#419741 RE: Laurent Maldague #419737

Looks like Sleven/Pdude had correct info. It's a bummer.


No, you fail to understand what trial "results" are.

"Results" include anything after the start of the trial. In this case they include the patient demographics as presented in the abstract,. All you have to do is look at any full paper on a trial and you will see "results" have pages of information starting with patient accrual.

There is no reason to assume that any efficacy results have been presented.