So at the risk of repeating what some who saw it earlier might have already said, the salient points for me were:

1. Details and time frame given for finalized (?) or if-finalized partnership.

        (plausibly audio glitch)

    a. partner to pay for Phase III-B

    b. partner to provide major up-front payment this year

    c. partner to include their SGLT2 inhibitor in the program

    d. partner to have onl combination data going forward as result

    e. milestone payments

    f. M&A payments

    g. payments tied to results of trial

    h. Don's mention that he sees this as an equal and fair deal

    i. Don't (plausibly accidental) mention that partner has sales people in the audience already - (and uh in the field already)

    j.  Don's mention that we should see this complete by year end AND

       that he expects RVX to become a major global payer within 3 yrs -

       Don't think he has ever gone quite so far

2. Additonal(?) details of intended trial - all patents to be on SGLT2 inhibitor, more chronic kidney disease patients, etc.

3. Mention of EPA encouragement to look at NAFLD/NASH

4. Mention that EPA left choice of SGLT2 or DPP4 drug to partner with up to RVX - vs specifying which drugs they wanted to see included

5. Additional indications -  targets seem to include a few additions and/or changes in order of mention, which may or may not have significance.  Complement mediated diseases is a broader category and listed first - neuro fibromatosis mentioned even above PAH. PAH mentioned as active and in progress of clinical development. Muscular dystrophy metioned before Fabry. And a note that there are many. Also repeating that COVID program is advancing. Plus the whole NASH thing.

While I did not feel that this was Don's best presentation - I did hear enough nuggets here to keep my ears perked, and to give me hope that there is movement in the right direction. Bringing a major new drug to  market as a tiny startup biotech is not an easy thing, especially after failing two trials. I don't know that Don or really anyone can be entirely blamed for that - I don't think he is the main science or clinical trial brain there - so he had to follow the advice he was given. And some of those advisors are long gone. Their understanding of the way the drug works took some years and investigations to fine-tune, but that is not so unusual. It's one of the reasons it is so hard for a tiny company to get a drug to market. There may be certain audiences for which I would think Don would be better served letting others speak. But not every audience. Overall, a CEO has to do much more than just be a great speaker.

If he pulls this one off, I say hats off to him. From my personal perspective, all that focus on academia and publication and peer review has actually been quite valuable and remains crucial. Where big pharma has large research teams and budgets and connections and can muster numerous university affiliations - and other biotechs become almost instantly famous based on either stunning results or the involvement of well-recognized top-notch teams - Don's crew has had to build that recognition to a broader base - even though they were already respectedand had credentials that were nothing to sneeze at. The general recognition factor was not as high as say a Harvard-MIT team like Constellation had. They have brought on respectable partners and collagues, continued to conduct good research on multiple fronts at once (there's Zenith too) and published plausible research on mechanisms and discovery. It has been very important that they do all this to build their credibility - especially with all the cynicism about post-hoc data that they had to face - and I think we are seeing signs that they have pulled it off. Definitely in their corner. 

Ok. End rant.