This was my question arising from the Presentation - MT pointed...

This was my question arising from the Presentation - MT pointed out in the below slide that patients (Cohort 1 anyway) were 16 months continuous on MPL, which is against the backdrop of an average 24 month life expectancy after MND diagnosis. Fantastic news!

But wouldn't it be better promotion if he was to spell out that the first cohort of trial patients were already (on average) some 24 months into their MND diagnosis before commencing that 16 months continuous treatment of MPL. So I would have thought a better way of promoting MPL would be to mention that our trial patients are something like +40 months survival since diagnosis, with the last 16 months being on MPL. That to me would deliver an even stronger indication that MPL delivers increased life expectancy against the average. To me, the slide and presentation sounded more like the patients were only 16 months along their diagnosis of MND (which is not the case of course).