The Analyst has been making broad statements with no scientific...

The Analyst has been making broad statements with no scientific knowledge about the drug and its processes. Cue EPP statement and "it's a wonderful company" and you know his understanding is limited.

What the Analyst doesn't realise is there is a bunch of long term investors here who know the science very well, unfortunately the Johnny-come-latelys try to fend off rational arguments using EPP as the benchmark even if they don't quite understand how it works lol.

The language from Clinuvel has changed undoubtedly. When the first technical notes regarding DNA repair were issued, there was very little mention of "assisting DNA repair". They know how DNA repair works, but they weren't sure if afamelanotide would work in humans as opposed to petri dishes of melanocytes. The first XP trial was terminated, my guess is they went for measuring MED to gauge DNA damage in case the markers didn't show distinct improvements. If you can't measure DNA repair accurately then you can claim DNA damage was reduced by measuring MED instead. Ok they've measured DNA damage markers as being reduced, but you'd get the same result with a sunscreen. What I wanted to see was an increase in p53 proliferation and tyrosinase activity, maybe more data is yet to come, if so fair enough.

Bottom line is this was less than I expected, but the upside is afamelanotide tans. That's something...