Maui, I think we're on the same page. I was intent

Maui, I think we're on the same page. I was intentionally vague because I agree with your reasoning, I just think our understanding is limited. There is justification for adding lympro at early and late stages, but earlier stages make more sense to me for now too.

In general, I think switching to a new diagnostic is complicated and a very up front energy intensive event (which is why GC touts the value of being first to market). I think of it like an exothermic chemical reaction. I assume we have a good product that will enable pharma to get greater value out of their trials, spend less energy to get more. but in order to get to that lower energy state, the industry and our company are going to have to overcome some threshold of energy, an activation energy shall we say. We're a small company. Even if our product turned water into wine, it would require lots of energy to get out with pace. Now, when you want to lower an activation energy to make the reaction, or transition to a new diagnostic paradigm easier, you add a catalyst, in this case our scientific advisory board. More precisely, instead of GC, JC, Kirby and co selling the product, you have SAB sell the product because they can do it easier. Everyone knows them and respects them. Anavex was an important deal. It shows there is interest, and yes, there are lots of people on their SAB to impress. Nonetheless, you have to wonder if the industry is going to want to let Anavex do the lympro experiment first or if they're going to want to be in on the same game at the same time. Again, all too complicated to predict the unfolding of events and the pace at which they will occur! What I have is great confidence that in the end we have a uniquely valuable and accurate test when Gtown is included and something of value now(we'll learn more soon I bet). The free market is the great experiment and its the only way we get paid, but we have a lot of reasons to be confident, no doubt.