Many of you raise valid points, though I question their...

Many of you raise valid points, though I question their relevance. Those familiar with RAC, having engaged with a breadth of preclinical and clinical data, can appreciate the clinical and commercial implications, aiding in risk assessment. However, many people who invest in the market overlook data-driven decisions, preferring to hear confirmations from friends or experts. In my view, early investors in RAC have recognized its potential. Truly understanding the scope of RAC, Bisantrene, and related fields like FTO inhibition and cardiotoxicity requires over 100 hours of study, a significant commitment for newcomers contemplating substantial investments.

It is my belief that RAC, in essence, embodies two distinct profiles split by clinical validation. Current circumstantial evidence strongly hints at Bisantrene’s affinity to modify cancer cell methylation and offer cardioprotection, which requires a keen interest in current research and how it relates to Bisantrene clinically. Clinical validation will redefine RAC’s standing, simplifying its future profile for new investors. Ideally, clinical validation proves Bisantrene as an innovation that both combats cancer through a previously untreated mechanism and protects the heart through another previously untreated mechanism. The messaging for RAC changes from retrospective and circumstantial to something more palatable to investors that can be understood simply with less risk of science being just too hard. I’ve invested based on this belief, trusting the board’s ability to succeed, especially with the upcoming CPACS trial. With the trial looming, I suspect the window for gaining an edge through research may close. I think more accurate evaluations on opportunity can only be achieved after clinical validation. For now, let's just say it's massive.