Interesting comments, how quickly people forget...Obviously...

Interesting comments, how quickly people forget...

Obviously these trials were initiated (per BIT commentary) with BP input initially and work in with existing drugs.

Whilst we are all looking for if you like the "moon shot", the "consistency" demonstrated over the period is not far from the moon shot itself, why? - bcs the rapid reduction in in VL has significant advantages, reduces risks, enables treatment etc. Per MM (somewhere) some struggle to reduce VL and if this alone is the difference achieved, then its is potentially life saving too btw. Marketable in your opinion? We've demonstrated no material side affects have we not ?

This is essentially the near term "use case" I was referring to, not to say its not the only one mid term, long term. As I say it is I gather also (might be stating the obvious here) the purpose of the study given its origin and lay out.

To your point re 12 months though, Im not sure it would be any different without continual 225 treatment - Idk tbh, but I gather based on the cycles we ran, its reduced, managed and would continue on with normal treatment. I suspect the question would rather be, what if 225 treatment was continued for 12 months ? Would VL go to 0 or close to it?

TO your point re Finals - Im not a scientist etc, but Ive seen many a report and my take on the finals here, possibly the delay is the potential for associated commentary. The case for a recommendation for further study has surely been presented? If not why would Becker? suggest interest?

A strong commentary of the back of final reports is presumably a potential catalyst for SP growth if well publicised, even better if BP reacts favourably.

When considered on this basis and given the time, cost (per Caspex) and complexity and other headwinds of micro-co running these trials... it makes the situation look somewhat more reasonable don't you think? Maybe even palatable? Despite the markets attention shifting elsewhere in recent months. Im starting to wonder if this is about the time that the "knowers" get it in, especially the BIT long haulers, I recall one posting here some time back saying they have repeatedly traded the cycling moves for CG.

As always, I suspect better comms wouldn't go astray here, and your core premise re liquidity does need to be addressed. Equally interesting Im compelled to place both thoughts in one sentence so close to an AGM.