knowing risk and why it is mitigated, page-8

Hi Ticketmaster, not sure why you are calling me to remind of things of which I am aware.

My reference to the 'worthiness' of downramper's posts, including but not limited to, Redfaces and Decan, was not the content of most of them, but that it prompts more rigorous research, and that the poor performance of PRR's previous management was a valid and relevant criticism at the time, subsequently remedied.

This was what led to their criticisms of the options and so on provided to the new management - which criticisms I rejected and we see proved ill-founded.

PRR's Cvac is well-placed certainly, but I cannot see a justification for your observation that 'Typically there is around a 80% chance of success for such a drug.' when the world is littered with drugs that fail at phase III and Provenge was in fact the very first cancer vaccine in the world to ever reach the market at all after decades of others trying and failing.

It is this virgin success that makes Cvac so exciting, when otherwise it would be striving itself to be the very first. While I don't disagree with your general remarks - (except the crack about me) I would be interested to read your explanation of the statistical basis for making such a claim.

Cheers.