Replies to post #33389 on NanoViricides Inc (NNVC)

[philsdaddy]

Fantastic news! So it's a green light for the next phase of studies--animal models. It appears that this is progressing exactly as it is supposed to. I don't believe any negativity can legitimately be read into this PR. The viricides worked in cell culture and now we see how they perform in animal studies. What more could a shareholder/investor want at this stage? I imagine the animal studies could occur fairly quickly (perhaps they have begun already?)--it's the data analyzing that seems to take awhile. This is still a fantastic time to add more shares--I still believe that NNVC represents a golden opportunity to invest now and acquire great wealth in the next few years. Good luck to all!
Lee

[DaysOnTheBeach]

Exactly! "Significant" in this usage means statistically significant. It means the study concluded that the observed efficacy was the result of the experimental treatment with a confidence of 95% or even 99% (depending on the stastical threshold employed).

Said another way, the use of the word "significant" means the scientists concluded that the chance of the observed positive findings being due to random chance as opposed to being the direct result of the expeimental treatment (the "nano", as our friend would improperly say) are only 5% or 1%.

This is better than quoting just the raw numbers. This is a scientific characterization of the raw numbers, and is the only thing that's important. These ARE the results, and they are very good. Having the actual raw numbers would add nothing to anyone's understanding of the outcome of this study, given that we already have the statistical characterization.

Drs. Harris and Seymour, having used the words "significant efficacy" in the press release, have put their professional reputations on the line. The good doctors certainly would not commit career suicide by using these words carelessly or inappropriately.

Any spin coming today from those few vocal ditractors, trying to say "where are the results" or "they must not be good or they would have published them", simply would be an attempt to push a lie in an effort to scare people and talk down the share price, and/or would demonstrate their total lack of understanding of the process of scientific testing.

best to all.

[emisbio]

Significant Efficacy can mean a statistical term - i.e. There is some kind of efficacy that is statistically unlikely to be due to random chance. Some kind could be 1% or 99% or anything in between.