Open question to the board: how should we really interpret this trial change. My biased opinion is that it is a extremely positive change. Taking off my rose glasses and thinking about it objectively I still think I come to that conclusion. Adding more sites in my mind is positive due to the same argument of "why add more sites and costs if not to expedite and benefit the trial?". The change to a very specific target of outcome tells me they want to zero in on even better data in the trial. The reduction in time frame tells me that B is working on the OM faster then originally anticipated. These seem to be all very good things. Any thoughts on if my logic is flawed here??