"I would think that all companies would use the word "may" in News Releases while describing a possible MOA and effectiveness of their drug, until that is, they are clinically proven and receive FDA approval?"  

Golf,

Absolutely correct.  The question is:  where is the evidence to support this statement in the second news release: "Apabetalone was shown to disrupt this interaction."

The interaction being referred to is the potential interaction between human BRD2/4 proteins and the viral E protein put forward as a hypothesis in the Gordon et al. paper.  The paper didn't even show that the interaction exists (just that it might) and it certainly didn't do any testing to show that apabetalone disrupts such an interaction. 

It is a strong statement that generally would be made on the basis of experimental work. Interestingly, this statement is really the only thing that differentiates the second RVX news release from the first one (put out the previous day).  I can see why it merits a second NR if it is true. The information that apabetalone definitely disrupts an interaction between a virally-upregulated host protein (BRD2/4) and the important viral protein E could certainly excite the interest of potential partners for clinical trials - so it is good information to share if it is true. I'm just asking: who did the experiments and where are the data that show apabetalone disrupts such an interaction?

Jupe