..............PAA clearly stated many times that stable disease...

..............PAA clearly stated many times that stable disease was a good outcome. I assumed, wrongly it appears, that given Elancos apparent involvement in trial parameters that they would have shared that opinion..............

I'm with you on that one JTG. - but !

.............It is now clear Elanco expected regression or at least a much larger trial number for stable disease................

have to ask "why". Sure that's what we are now told but I'm getting to the stage of wanting more info. How on 1 hand can you say the message was an email that simply stated no thanks and on the other explain that they expected regression. Just does not add up.

As to some contributors suggesting all focus should now be directed towards Covid,- frankly cant think of a better way of devaluing the worth of the business. If that is the plan then the BoD really does need to come out with a clear and concise set of statements as to the how , why and whens of their strategic plans that will protect the value of the work already completed. Imagine the outcome if covid treatment is less than 100%. What do you reckon would be the future for the dog solution then ?