Intersting that GC is going to focus on the P valu

Intersting that GC is going to focus on the P value.

Quote:

---

Mr. Commissiong will review results of the full 140-subject LP-002 study assessing the predictive value of LymPro in patients with mild, moderate and severe AD. The results will include the dataset from the initial 72 patients showing that LymPro achieved highly statistically significant results in correctly distinguishing patients with moderate-to-severe AD from healthy controls and from the additional 68 patients in the study's extension to assess LymPro's predictive value in diagnosing early-stage AD.

---

http://content.stockpr.com/_news/amarantus/20...B_1854.pdf

Isn't that part of the reason some people absolutely lost their minds in July? They just didn't understand how Statistically Significant the P value was.

Maybe someone has the spot on number, but didn't GC say something along the lines that a P Value of .01 was considered statically significant in the scientific community? (Thx In-advance if anyone has it)

The July 31st Presentation
P.13 it shows a P Value of .003

http://content.stockpr.com/amarantus/media/99...e535d0.pdf

Dec. 2014 Presentation
Slide 11 & 12

P Values are shown as .0015 & .0059
http://content.stockpr.com/amarantus/media/3b...121792.pdf

I'm glad he's going to give a reason as to why the numbers he's presenting are so important. It's not a presentation to a bunch of scientists so the importance of explaining what the P Value actually means will have a much greater impact on this group.

Cheers