In regards to this point - "It's interesting to note that though WT treated patients showed numerically bigger response over the WT placebo than did ITT treated patients over ITT placebo, the p values are bigger [less significant] in WT than in ITT, e.g. for ADAS-Cog data, p=0.015 in WT patients vs. p=0.008 in ITT." From what I understood the p value was higher in WT despite the stronger effect size due to the 'n' only being 70% of the ITT 'n' and larger populations tend to mean lower p value.
Yes, no new insights there from what we've already suspected/discussed about the S1 subgrouping. And the author overstates his case a bit on safety; the company cites ARIAs just to make a point.
His overall view is the company will be compelled to run a bigger confirmatory trial(s) before possible approval.
Oh what a tough credibility choice Dr. Marwan Sabbagh, who is a recognized expert in neurology and Alzheimer's research, or C.C Abott a Seeking Alpha contributor.
The new Seeking Alpha piece misses the point that the market -- this time -- appreciates: blarcamesine induces a fifty percent reduction in cognitive decline for about two thirds of the ITT patients. Whether the drug's differentiation between WT and the mutated subgroup reaches statistical significance or not on this trial size is nearly irrelevant from a clinical perspective. The fifty percent figure is stat sig.
And the remark about the p value/delta inconsistency is innumerate; the apparent paradox is resolved by the fact that there is a lower n for the WT dosed subgroup versus the full dosed subgroup. Any competent and honest reviewer would not be bothered by those numbers.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
