Hi y'allI'd like to add that what the SAG has done is clearly...

Hi y'all

I'd like to add that what the SAG has done is clearly admirable (in terms of tipping over the power base), and in my experience perhaps very unusual if not unique. Change was needed and there was no other way it would have materialised.

My concerns that I put into print in the previous posts are really focussed on what I think is the need for careful discretion with regards to the makeup of the new management group, and the value that may be provided by some of the existing experienced team. I see agreement from others that the two remaining directors should be supported by the SAG (courted?). I see strong emotion from some on this thread that seem to be smelling blood and wanting to massacre everything that has anything to do with current management. However, some bad decisions seem to have been made. I'm no scientist, but the toughest one for me is how after years of sourcing participants, promoting and preparing the RA trial the dosing conversion from IV to Subcutaneous injection seemed to have been messed up. Or is it really not that simple to do and not expected to be accurate? Stuff I don't know.

At the end of the day I'm just another retail holder with a view, and a share portfolio that looks like Stalingrad in 1943. I need to pop a valium before I can click on 'my portfolio' these days.

No more from me....good luck to all.