I agree. While its great to dream about the extraordinary upside...

I agree. While its great to dream about the extraordinary upside we undoubtably have here, I think it is sensible to understand the negatives as well as possible in order to manage downside risk and not get too badly burned. For me a key negative is that although we have important understanding about how our drug reduces pain and inflammation, we don't have much understanding about how it induces cartilage regeneration. This means we don't know whether the drug formulation is optimal for OA or whether a better targeted formulation is possible. If so, maybe this creates an opportunity for a competitor to beat us with a slightly different drug not protected by our patents - a big negative. Another but lesser negative implication is that we can't identify the roughly 15% of OA patients who won't get much benefit from our treatment. Our P3 trial would be a lot stronger if we could identify and eliminate those OA patients who won't benefit. I suspect this would also be a big plus for our TGA bid.

As for the directors selling, I don't think there were clearly negative reasons for the sale. Obviously not exactly positive, but not a significant negative either. I view the low-price capital raising and over-reliance on published results to win FDA approval as negative because they were mis-steps. Hopefully we learnt something there.