Posted On: 07/31/2014 9:48:49 AM
Post# of 30066
WATSONHELPER
Facts, we already know this....A little earlier this year from their filings: A phase 2 diagnostic blood test called LymPro being developed for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”) at its earliest stages with data in over 160 patients with 92% sensitivity/ 91% specificity to date. This is combined to date. We don't know the latest and greatest update. The only time we change posters or analytical data is to favor a sub-population on more accurate specs. If the 1st round was in the 70's as an example with any flaw, we would count it to a degree, but ignore it in the updated presentation so that it reflected the most accurate and best supervised results. If they are saying it performed "even better", "expecting great results", "looking forward to great results", that technically would be misleading shareholders. You can do the math off of that, there was some panic yesterday, but I don't think anyone got to the bottom of the document before worries came out. I realize worries come mostly from uninformed. You will all be pleased even if you stick to the facts you know, for a 160 person average to have 90+ specificity, think about how strong the new data is if any of the first data was lower. Things generally only improve when you hone in on them as they have done. They won't decide at the last minute to drop a bomb where they are the focal point. I believe everyone will be more than happy with what comes out. Best to all.
..
Facts, we already know this....A little earlier this year from their filings: A phase 2 diagnostic blood test called LymPro being developed for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”) at its earliest stages with data in over 160 patients with 92% sensitivity/ 91% specificity to date. This is combined to date. We don't know the latest and greatest update. The only time we change posters or analytical data is to favor a sub-population on more accurate specs. If the 1st round was in the 70's as an example with any flaw, we would count it to a degree, but ignore it in the updated presentation so that it reflected the most accurate and best supervised results. If they are saying it performed "even better", "expecting great results", "looking forward to great results", that technically would be misleading shareholders. You can do the math off of that, there was some panic yesterday, but I don't think anyone got to the bottom of the document before worries came out. I realize worries come mostly from uninformed. You will all be pleased even if you stick to the facts you know, for a 160 person average to have 90+ specificity, think about how strong the new data is if any of the first data was lower. Things generally only improve when you hone in on them as they have done. They won't decide at the last minute to drop a bomb where they are the focal point. I believe everyone will be more than happy with what comes out. Best to all.
..
(0)
(0)
