Thank you Imtesty for your efforts to provide a rough transcript of the webcast. I watched the live webcast and was taking notes too and I missed a couple of items that I now see in your notes.

"We’re selective primarily for BRD4-BD2.  And we have follow-on compounds that can be selective for just about any one of those.  Whether it’s a BD-1, BD-2, or BRD- 4, 3, 2.  So we’re pretty advanced in this."

That's great. It would be great to know the properties of the 7 promising follow on compounds (i.e. are all BRD4-BD2 selective, or other BRD-BD combinations?). Of course, in their big library of over 2000 molecules they have all kinds of combinations, but what are the properties of the most advanced ones. Hopefully one day soon we will hear about pre-clinical data with these other BET inhibitors with selectivity different from the BRD4-BD2 properties of apabetalone.

"And BETonMACE full enrollment completed in Q2, maybe Q3."

I know we heard mid-2018 before, but the "maybe Q3" really stuck out to me. I still feel that we aren't being told the whole story here with the FDA/US involvement. If ~300 patients from US are to be included with US enrollment occurring between Q1 2018 and Q3 2018, AND the projected top-line data being Q4 2018 (at which time they've hit 250 MACE events), this means that US patients would be dosed for 12 months tops (assuming Jan 2018 enrollment starts) and possibly for as little as 4 months (assuming enrollment continues through Aug 2018).

What happens once top-line is announced assuming that primary outcome in met? Will these US patients need to stop even though they've only been dosed 4-12 months? Keep in mind that most if not all of the 2100 non-US patients will have been dosed for over a year come Q4 2018 with 800-1000 being dosed for close to 18 months and 600-800 being dosed for 2 years (based on past enrollment figures).

Will these US patients continue in a blinded fashion? Will these US patients continue in an open-label extension of the trial? What are the implications for the FDA and EMA filings. In other words, can Resverlogix proceed with EMA approval while a trial extension proceeds with the US portion?

Am I the only one feeling that the there may be something that doesn't add up here?

BearDownAZ