I agree about reigning in leaps for newbies, but w

I agree about reigning in leaps for newbies, but words like "data" and "efficacy" at this early juncture come with both small and big letters, such that cohort trials progressing, serum markers, low toxicity, extending life, and even linking comments such as TOB did, all qualify as "small d" or "small e" whereas MRI scans that show progressive tumor shrinkage, and accumulating enough of a sample size to make quantifiable inferences about drug efficacy would mean using capital letter "E" or "D", neither of which are not expected anytime soon.

I don't fault anyone for trying to make inferences based on the limited info at our disposal, as long as their reasoning backs it up. To me, that's not hype but rather good detective work.

On another subject, if the company really is planning on uplisting at some point to the Naz, then management will need to seat board members who meet the criteria for independence (different animal than the prominent scientific advisory board they already have in place).

Anyone with direct contact might want to forward the Nasdaq listing qualifications to Leo, if he is not already aware of them:

https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf

Out of town again, but I do try to keep up on the reading here and "over there" in spite of differences voiced about strategy, inferences and perspective.

I especially like the "news gap" vs. "incremental evidence" debate.

Good stuff...