Great!

I wonder exactly what was meant in terms of saying 208 ranked second out of 2,000 drugs? If he was only talking about a ranking on the topic of efficacy, then I wonder if perhaps the ranking is different when safety/experience is considered (if not included in ranking)?   If so, I wonder if perhaps 208 might rank higher in the total picture?

Not what he said.  63 is the number of drugs identified.  He said 208 was listed second and immediately discounted whether that meant anything. 

Just some questions here really.   And two more:  What impact might this have upon timing and likelihood for approval?  

Timing?  Who really cares what the protocols call for.  We are on a map, any map, for once.  RVX-208 completed a three year Phase 3 with no Side effect concerns.    

 What are the next steps giving that high ranking?   I doubt anyone is sitting on their hands!

Again, a second position on the list may not be a "ranking".  It was juxtaposed behind JQ1 in second spot of the non-FDA-approved-drugs list and the center of their focus.  There is a Aproved Drugs list of some 30 drug and they didn't seem the focus of their attention there. RVX-208 may have been placed second (I like to think anyway) because I challenged UCSF to consider RXV-208 against what they knew about pre-cinical JQ1 that they were originally touting.   

The next steps will depends on the results of the testing that the UCSF is coordinating with Mount Sinai Hospital and Louis Pasteur Institute in France.  We have heard boo from the first round of test because they said they could not say anything until they tested results again for some reason. Please stand by...