My take.

News is frustratingly long in coming, but generally things still look good. Despite maybe being a day late Heh, to the extent that they can at this stock price   

Given the tendency of viruses to mutate, development of new strains, global extent of the problem, and long term impacts of this illness - apabetalone still has a potentially significant role to play. Results "promising" albeit non-specific until publication.

I have the sense that maybe something either fell through vs. an expected timeline before the call, or remained unfinalized, or became less clear, both in terms of data and deals - but that the general program continues to move forward.

IF there is any truth to that hunch, having called a meeting, perhaps (just conjecture) Don tried to follow through and put the best face on what he may have hoped would be more concrete news.

Or, maybe he was just responding to investor clamoring for more updates.And seeing how that would go absent a major milestone to report (or at least pending publication).

Details of the trial allow them to go on their own if necessary, which is a plus. Stronger bargaining position if nothing else. The planned targeting of patients seems to make sense in many ways, at least to me.

But some question points for me...12 months was  assigned to the extra chem in the targeted plan vs 12-18 in the BP 10k patient version...so our version may or may not be as much faster than the other design as estimated, even run concurrently. If it would take big pharma 12-18, why would it only take us 12? Need to double check what we would leave out.

Concurrent development will of course save time, but maybe not as much as shown.

Also.. if that Chem could have been going during covid, it could be well along by now. Or has it, is it?

Same thing re interim analysis. No guarantee we have the results at halfway pt, though of course I hope we do. We all hope and expect. And we all know we have done that before.

We have seen prior studies that looked adequately powered prove not to be, so despite what seem like compelling arguments, I retain some misgivings on the targeted design. Maybe they could split the diff w one or a couple thous more patients. But they are the experts. My misgivings are just mine. 

Even so all looks promising. Still. To me.

I have liked Don, though I think he does need to hire someone who is good at both the technical and scientific aspects and inspirational speaking. As stated in past, he just does not speak like he lives, eats, and breathes this stuff. 

However, I felt that Don was not in his best form on the fourth, again just my view.

He can do better. I have seen him do much better. He can. (Jmho)

If he is too busy to clean things up or devote the time, he should consider just hiring someone to cover certain talks or parts of talks for him. Goodness knows he has enough else to do. 

It's easy to make small mistakes when one is excited or has a lot on one's mind, or is too busy to even breathe. Even so, certain mistakes can undermine one's credibility with certain audiences.

Specifically.

At least to me, the overly long stress on things like clarifying the "technical term" "SARS CoV-2" was like nails on a chalk board. Second time an inordinate amount of time has been spent on that in a highly-anticipated talk. All that time spent on a complete non-issue. It just makes it look like he either thinks his investors are stupid or maybe he is. Or maybe he is doing that to pad the timing and content of the talk. Any or all of these 3 possibilities would not be good.

In any case, there is already too much padding relative to clarity and news.Even the necessary repeats get tiresome.

For the record, I do NOT actually think Don is stupid. Not at all. In fact I am sure he is a bright and competent guy.

My point is just that he undermines himself with that kind of thing.

It must have come up at some point, or he would not have done it at painful length twice.  But two or maybe five words would suffice. SARSs CoV-2, "or COVID-19"  or SARS CoV-2 "which as you know is COVID-19". And done. Move on. And no need to repeat that clarification every time it comes up. At least not beyond two words.

So much time clarifying a term that is already obvious to the vast majority leaves a very uncomfortable and questionable impression.

This kind of stuff is what earns people unfair nicknames like snake oil salesmen.

We know Don believes in this product and that its potential is real. He is not a snake oil salesman. He does however need to either brush up his presentation or just hire someone else to do it for him when he is too busy. He has enough to do.

There are other mistakes too that one need not be an expert to pick up - in this and other talks. Like frequently mixing up references to inflammatory vs anti-inflammatory; items vs. their inhibitors; scrambling terms etc, etc. Plus the more subtle errors in explanations that others have pointed out 

Some of this is just a kind of sloppy-speak shorthand that results from trying to cover a lot of material quickly, with too much in one's mind.. But it can unfortunately still make someone look like they do not know the material. 

I think Don does have much to offer.

He has a good folksy tone.

He is passionate and he can connect.

He has shown some ingenuity in keeping this thing afloat without a name or pair of names like "Harvard and MIT" (no offense to Calgary, just that some competitors have bigger names with deeper pockets from the start).

I am NOT one of those clamoring for his removal. I think he is an asset.

My point is just that when he does venture into explanatory discourse, he really should keep it tighter, even if it is just a conf call.

When he has time, he could benefit by practicing his schpiel with one of his in-house experts until all the most obvious glitches are smoothed out. When he doesn't have time, he could just hire someone else to present the technical sections with more finesse.

That person should have the skill to speak well to all levels of technical prowess in an articulate and engaging fashion  but at the same time to know the material cold. To be able to present technical material to non-technical audiences without dumbing it down, insulting their intelligence, or scrambling the explanations. To know which terms need and do not need  clarification. To avoid over-much "padding".

Another - possible- glitch. We all came up w other potential competitors, so statements about how ahead we are, or how alone and unique we are in the field could stand to be backed up w more acknowledgement of those options and explanation of how we differ or have something else to offer, or are better or etc.

Of course cleaning all this up takes time, and one could well argue that he has more important things to do with his time. And he does.

So I am back to.. an instinctively good speaker with a firmer grasp on the science, and then just step in for the portions where you truly excel.

Ok. More to say but have already repeated myself more than he did!