No question is completely pointless GAC. I've had thoughts along that line as well. Here's the rub;But it’s really designed to show that the one does work better than the other, and that will allow us to move forward in the future with a fixed-dose combination with the superior one, which we do believe is Rosuvastatin."

These were DM's words in the summer of 2015 before the trial started. If this is true and the data supports one side versus the other, then we could be on our way to something that few expect at this time.

Under those circumstances what's it worth? In that situation the numbers have not changed from prior to the TL coming out. If there is a couple more years of testing required the value changes dramatically as there are more costs involved and less time on patent protection. As a rule of thumb I use 1X's potential annual sales to come up with a value.

Diabetic CVD = 12 million patients X 40% x $2,000

Cognitive = 13 million patients X $2,000

CKD = (US only) 37 million X $2,000

These are the potential annual markets for each of those indications. There are a number of other indications like inflammation that haven't even been accounted for.

So if there is a chance that we could get approval in just 1 of these areas based on the BETonMACE full data my number would be much greater than the one you came up with. If we have to do years more work and fund all of it ourselves then we will have a lot more dilution which would diminish the per share value in the future.

Great question, tough answer.

tada