**Why did KM use the terms "spectacular" and
"illuminating" in the weeks before ICAD?**

**Perhaps because KM saw some charts that weren't shown
at ICAD. So I've generated some charts that show how individual
bapineuzumab dosages compare to placebo on each of the four endpoints, using
data that is in the presentation, but that isn't highlighted.**

**Here they are:**

**Non-carrier MITT ("modified intent to treat") cohort (47 patients on bap and 30 or 32 on placebo)****Non-carrier-completer cohort (36 patients on bap and 21 on placebo, who completed all 6 infusions)**

**There are, of course, caveats regarding statistical
significance, since the number of patients at each particular dosage level is
small (sometimes only 8 or 9, or fewer---we're not told exactly). And I've
made linear interpolations (averages) between week 0 and week 78, since those
were the only two weeks given for the individual dosages. And in the case
of the completer cohort, I've had to assume that the completer placebo patients
scored about the same as the MITT placebo cohort patients. (Elan: give us
more details!)**

**So there's lots of room for nitpicking. And these
charts surely make one puzzle over the fact that the dosage level of 1.0mg/kg
works so miserably across all of the tests. What's going on with that?**

**But look at the bap dosage level of 0.5mg/kg in these
charts (the green line). I find those results both spectacular and
illuminating, and I can surely see why a Phase III trial is justified. If the
results of the 0.5 dosage are verified in Phase III, it'll be incredibly
exciting: in the non-carrier completer cohort, as you can plainly see from the
charts, the mental decline is not only halted, it is reversed!**

**Two other sets of charts would also of interest, of
course: the carrier MITT cohort and the carrier completer cohort.
I hope to get a chance to generate those charts sometime soon. They won't
be nearly as spectacular, but they might be interesting.**