Hey Jaggin' 3 reasons why they did this I reckon: - really good...

Hey Jaggin'

3 reasons why they did this I reckon:

- really good result but flawed scientific process
- really bad result but flawed scientific process
- inconclusive but flawed scientific process

Any way the fact that they recognise that the science doesn't cut it and they need to re-do is good science/business. If they intend to publish the result then they (presumably) need to be subject to peer review and therefore the science needs to be tight.

With regard to whether it will be quicker next time, you'd expect so given that broader experimental process is already in play.

8- 30 days of testing post treatment has been the time frame for assessment in previous in vivo (mouse) studies, then a month or so of data analysis.

It depends on the success of the data (or otherwise). If it's good and they want to publish the data then we will need to wait until the next conference date. If it's bad they should release it immediately.

Q1, 2024 for release I'm estimating.