GAC - I'm not trying to say I have an answer but will add a few thoughts to your process. The statement you quoted refers to a small-cap entering Ph. III so it might be true that it should raise a red flag at that time. Being that no Pharma wanted to join might say they were skeptical of success, especially in CVD where there had been numerous failures. Times also changed and they wanted to shift more of the risk to biotechs and pay more for less risk. RVX entered Ph III with some new science not overly understood by many parties so that adds to them wanting it proven first. What we did have to go on was small Ph. II trial post-hoc analysis so not a lot of proof at that time. I don't find it hard to see why they were reluctant to jump in back then. The fact they didn't says nothing about BoM success. They don't know whether it is working any more than RVX does. Should BoM be successful, the red flags will be gone. Pfizer's move on the TNBC trial is after they have been able to watch an unblinded trial with Apabetalone for prostate cancer. They know a lot more about what they are getting into there.