golf

I like what I believe you are getting at with "we need to distinguish and promote apabetalone as a.....".

The reason that I see value in this idea of yours is that I've said for years that RVX is not getting the message out in a way that demonstrates the profound relevance and breakthrough science that is happening with this company. All they do is go to science and investor conferences presenting the "same old same old" stuff in the "same old way" that essentialy no one understands and hence do not understand it's relevance. I'm sure some of the science people get it but the conferences have obviously not lit a fire under interest in RVX.

I thought when they hired Clayton that they may have brought in a communications expert. An effective communications expert would be able to work with a guy/gal like BDAZ and distill his/her explanations to comprehendable language that investors would understand and they would grasp it's significance in addressing huge unmet needs.

It is a very interesting case study to observe how these huge companies get moving along a hypothesis and then path pursuing the CEPT hypothesis and push to the end even as signals are coming in that it is futile. I guess it is just another example of group think.

RVX is a culture that will not be able to get their message out in a relevant manner so we need to hope that the geeks that get it have some influence up the BP management ranks. No evidence of this to date.

Very interesting times. I still believe that if apabetalone does not meet it's 3 point MACE target it will still yield breakthrough science and will be a viable biotech in some form or another.

Let's hope for a positive FA at some point.

GLTA

Toinv