buckeyes, I do agree with your thoughts and jbuffet2's sentiments re stroke.

One thing I know is that Dr Kulikowski is doing her part in continuing the scientific discovery as we have seen in the recent publication. Also, the post hoc analysis has been very helpful in the development of a proposed BoM2 trial design that we saw a couple of years ago.

One of the reasons I bought into RVX is because I'm a science junky and not a scientist. I get really enthused when I read some science that seems to be break through...hence RVX. I'm still hopefull about the science but the point that I'm trying to make is post hoc discoveries are essential but do not provide proof. Proof requires experimental design (i.e. a trial). Perhaps, if a specific pathway to reduce a certain indication was discovered it could make a very large difference in how a BP views apabetalone but I don't thing we are threr yet.

Dlee just provided an excellent post and one of his points, at least from my understanding, is that clinicians often require a p level of p=0.0001% in order to give sufficient proof of effectiveness. In BoM apabetalone achieved p=0.06%. So apabetalone is not even in the ball park because it did not even achieve the commonly accepted level of p=0.05%.

So if the p=0.05% level had been met that trial would have been cnsidered a success (and perhaps FDA approval). That would be a different ball game.

So now RVX has to create interest in apabetalone with p=0.06 and lots of valuable post hocs. In this situation it will require IMO a highly competent management team to achieve financing for BoM2. 

If Don and his team have already done all the pitches to BPs and come up dry it tells me there is a lot of scientific doubt about apabetalone other than scientiific curousity.

Anyway, I'm completely in the dark so I'll maintain and grow my shares based the low price and keep buying my weekly lottery ticket. Anything can happen and all of the post hocs demonstrate possibilities.

GLTA. Happy Monday.

Toinv