No sweat Bear but I wasn’t looking at this from the perspective of how many MACE events might be added by the longer treatment group but merely the number of patient years of data which will be collected from this group, patient years which wouldn’t have to be collected from new recruits. I do remember you talking about tapering of events with increased treatment duration. In some ways to me  if the company was happy with the number of MACE events and happy with the gross data analysis then it might be prudent to collect patient years for statistical purposes from a group with a statistically lower rate of MACE occurrence and therefore less chance for surprises. Would obviously be really nice to know how many MACE events have occurred thus far. Not sure why that gross number has to be so secret.