I'm going to say one more thing on this topic before leaving it...

I'm going to say one more thing on this topic before leaving it alone for a while.

It is absolutely, in my opinion, an error on behalf of shareholders to allow this parameter - this question - this ambiguity - on 30 30 or 40 20 split to go by without requiring confirmation from the CEO and or the board - because the split matters - the number of patients (even if its only about 6 or 7 above or below 60 matters) and it is absolutely a mistake to leave a parameter like this at the disclosing discretion of management because they can then selectively disclose and only to those whom they want to disclose to.

For instance - if it is not a hard term in contracts with sites of with third party trial managers then those patient sites of the third party trial manager would want flexibility on it - their own way. Its absolutely an advantage if one site can say to their patients - hey we'll give you a fifty fifty chance if you do the trial with us and others can only give you a one in three chance - so come to us and not to them.

Leaving this sort of thing to selective disclosure is wrong in a non unsimilar way as it was WRONG to disclose information about DFU to so called professional and sophisticated shareholders PRIOR to generally releasing that information to the market and to the existing shareholders whose existing shares had already financed the obtaining of that at that point undisclosed information.

I'm tagging you @pfeifer1982 and @truss20 - not because I want or need you to reply - but because I want to go on record - I regard this as that important. Either or anyone could ask Kilian to put this parameter on the record. Get it into the public domain or damn well explain why it is not. I've a history in my own opinion of getting some big calls right in this space.