Tulip, all very valid points so thanks for sharing. One of the...

Tulip, all very valid points so thanks for sharing.

One of the questions i'd like to be able to ask of the very well credentialed overseas directors (recently departed) is why the RA trial was designed in the way it was. While there's no doubt that it was not a complete flop, why was there such large sums of money and 3 years spent on a SC trial when they appeared not to have any prior data on the way XTOLL would work under this method of administration. Could there not have been a 20 or 30 patient trial on unhealthy patients to test the SC method of administration; a subsequent re-formulation and then a larger blinded placebo trial.

If Novo does take up their option, and i think there is perhaps a 50% chance of this, surely the value will be dialled down under any agreement as a result of the work that still needs to be undertaken to re-formulate and trial etc:

So i agree, the overseas directors appear to be very well suited to this sort of business but i can't help thinking that poor decisions have been made in the scientific area; this is not to mention the appalling management which they all had a hand in. I should disclaim that i am no scientist; not by a long shot. My comments could be misguided but i don't have any information to the contrary; I'm sure i'm not alone when i say, I wish i did.

Just to make it clear; i personally would not like to see the remaining overseas directors leave. The two that remain have only a short history with CBZ and are clearly very learned and well credentialed gentleman. I don't perceive that the general feeling in this forum is to 'remove them all' and for the few that do have views, i'm sure it is purely frustration speaking and this is understandable.