GAC,

I think a BIG difference is that with RVX we are talking about a company with ZERO products on the market commercially to date? There are tons of promising drugs/devices/ventures that never make it to market, or don't last long because of poor funding, poor scalability plans/capabilities, lack of procedural people beyond the scientists and visionaries, and/or a lack of operating cash/capital post-launch. Many promising drugs/devices never make to market due to late emerging issues with science as well. These things all impact the ability to raise capital for one thing, beyond those drinking the kool aid (the science) ... this looks like very GOOD and enticing kool aid btw though, to myself and some others like Dart, HL, and some others way smarter and more savvy than me. But most companies like this situation are going to seem cash strapped all the way till the end (good or bad) because everyone wants to be in position for max benefit, while mitigating risk along the way "just in case ... minimum risk for max benefit.

Hence spoon feeding "as needed", minimizing exposure, while trying to get to data/approval, followed by monopoly money for all. There is financial risk right now for RVX in accepting money, the lenders/investors have the leverage, and control might be a concern? If/When top line and full data shows well, for Cardio and maybe even Renal/Congnitive ...... the leverage shifts BIG TIME ....... deals and opportunities become plentiful, as investment/commecialization risk looks way lower and RVX-208 looks MORE real, and likely more of a sellers market for RVX, whether the stock pps soars or not at that point, yet.

From the "tea leaves" ... My gut tells me the "company" has a plan, believes in the science, is confident in the coming BoM results, and are playing it for max benefit and least risk for the stake holders, including THEMSELVES and the BIG share holders. They just simply don't seem worried, while we fret over the details without much enlightenment. Not much pandering for dough in the street, or obnoxious stock offerings at every other turn, they seem like they "think" ... "they got this" ... systematically spending their efforts at science fairs rather than touting the stock.

JMHO on a "gut" level ...... and I HOPE they are right ...... and they do "got this" ......

Secondarily, I LOVE yours and others' technical analysis. I would have more faith in the technicals were they not reliant, vulnerable, and volatile to whims and wishes in the marketplace .... since there are no "fundamentals" to review first, and no commericalized products and cash flow, or operational business management to assess. It is ALL reliant on the unknown likelihhod and confidence in what the future holds, and can change with the wind ... since no foundational business "fundamental" analysis exists, it's all about "confidence" in good looking but unproven science (unproven to date) with humongous markets awaiting if ... 1) the efficacy and safety are actually good (unkonown at this point but "seems" good on both counts), and 2) the study design and analysis are valid and show well enough to prove #1 .......

Just my $.02 ... I am a believer ... but I also worry about all the same stuff everyone else worries about including financing, trial design, etc.

Just wanted to echo others in that I TRULY appreciate the insights, analysis, and questions that you, bear, and a host of others continually bring to this site, and this opportunity. This is a real education for me, shareholder since 2015, and itchy, confused, concerned, and excited all at the same time :0)