Under valued stock, page-171

My big takeaways (some of which we already knew):

• "not developing for the healthy over 50's among us"
• "If we can give them independent living for another 6, 12 or 18 months"
• "known to be safe", "known not to impact other drugs elderly people already take"
• The "false negative" comment I don't agree with. He states that the 12 week assessment wasn't long enough, but then states they have data to show results from 2 weeks....?
• Says that part 2 of XanaMIA will be in AD patients. I thought we were still going to remain in MCI..?
• States will start part 2 early next year and then will have data 12 months after that. This is shorter than I expected.
• I didn't realise there was an open IND for AD trials in US..?
• Possible to remain independent if able to cover the large trial costs - I didn't think this was on the cards.
• (paraphrased) "Have results that show it works, just need to do the right trial design to get approved" - Is very confident that the trial design is the most important factor. Ie, 0% clinical risk, high execution risk.
• "Like to back good science", "have backed myself" - it's all about trial design, not the drug working...

Another thing which isn't really that big, but when someone uses their hands a lot in the way they communicate they need to remember to do everything inverted so that it looks correct for the audience. Ie, move from right to left (for themselves) when demonstrating movement, so that it is left to right to the audience.

After watching the clip my confidence in the science is the same, however am a little more concerned about the execution of the trial designs.

IMO, etc