RVXoldtimer, that is called brand positioning and it was what I have been pointlessly harping about for a long time...controlling the communications agenda.

RVX is a science company, a culture of science and the concept of trying to control the perception of the value of their brand is not even relevant in their agenda other than the perception given by scientific results to other scientists. I like this because of it's integrity and the peer review process.

I was attracted to Resverlogix by epigenetics because it seems to be so obvious as a biological process for the future of medicine but even after I put my money in I still wondered about the intergity and goals of RVX. That concern I've resolved for myself and I am happy with the business integrity in spite of Don's bs. Don does what he has to do and he always delivers the $.

I am convinced that the "brand value perception" will only be a fall out of break through science for this company. 

Too bad this trial failed but it does seem that the failure at p=0.06% may well have been the result of being under powered for the RRR target and the decision to not do the futility analysis, probably for practical reasons like the intense financial and time pressure? That is a really tough business decision.

The fact that Eastern, Hepa and other large share holders are staying in on one hand says they have no option OR they see what I think I see. There is too much good stuff happening not to hold on. 

All of that being said I'm going back to find a bdaz post that explained the statistical design of BoM and this has been on my mind ever since BoM failed. My concern is statistical multiple comparisons after the primary end point failed. Some comparisons may be valid but I thing we are back almost entirely into exploratory, post hoc hypothesis development. While I think this will be exciting I do think it is sort of pure science. There will be much more learning and very exciting.

From a business or investor POV the only question I have is will this phase 3 test and all of the cumulative knowledge be enough to attract significant interest from a business perspective or do we have another 5 years of science required?

Be cautious of the various stat tests. I think they lead to areas of scientific interest but I am not sure all of these sub tests (unless built into the trial design) lead to anything except the next level of exploration.

Of course, if the FDA or EUDA sees some unaddressed needs (eg in CKD) perhaps we'll see some quick action.

GLTA

Toinv