potentially important times, page-11

I think that's a little unfair. You took data to mean clinical data re viral loads etc. Its an issue of semantics. The 'data' released pertained to the dosage and to whether the trial should continue. Perhaps they should have called it 'results' instead of data, but in science (my field), data means anything coming out of the experiments/trials being performed. I can't see a prob to be honest.

The week 144 data later this year is from phase 2. If you look further ahead in their schedule, you'll see phase 3 results for week 24 coming out late 2010. Given week 16 is already out, clearly they are a different sort of results to the 16 week ones just released (they'll be the clinical ones you're after). To be honest, when i first saw that schedule, I was confused, but it was obvious they couldn't be the same sort of results simply because of the timeline. I spoke to AVX and they clarified it.

Re the phase 3 trial results, obviously they can't unblind a trial in the early stages (ie now) and then somehow re-blind it to continue forward so its not a matter of AVX being unreasonably secretive or whatever. With regard to partners, we've been told that what they wanted (in terms of certainty) was info re the dose. They now have that. Phase 2 was all about efficacy - that was excellent. Early phase 3 was about dose- that was as they wanted . Late phase 3 will be about sheer numbers of patients and the viral load etc - 2010. I think prospective partners have enough info to figure out if they want to get involved or not. If they are interested, prob better (ie cheaper) for them to get involved now rather than at end of phase 3.