Ann: Investor Presentation, page-575

Thank you. I see where you are coming from. I do however disagree with your interpretation that they only took 25 samples:
"I don't know why only 25 patients had serum levels (taken), I just know that that was reported as what as what was available - had they had 26 or 27 it would have been better to use all they had - bigger data set better stats - but they didn't so they used the 25 they had."
They collected 40 samples and therefore had a bigger data set, except they had to filter the 40-patient data set "post-hoc" to get the ones with the MAP scores supporting their hypothesis - and for that they could only use 25.

Just like your patent point (which was valid), this might seem like a petty point, but saying they only took 25 patient serum levels when they took 40, especially since you said "they wouldn't arbitrarily leave some out - which one's would they chose to leave out", is in my opinion incorrect as they made a conscious decision to leave an additional 15 data points out aince they didn't fit into their new/reversed hypothesis.

Bottom line however, you say they only have 11 daya points which I agree would make it very difficult to avoid a CRL #3 as there is no new data to present, while I say, there Pilot study generated additional dat, giving them more thanc11 data points.