havasu: You make an excellent point. The optimis

havasu: You make an excellent point. The optimist in me thinks that the answer to your question is already implied by the conduct of management. However, the question you pose should not really have to asked by an investor. The question and answer should have already been put explicitly on the table by management. The downside of small n is not small in either side of the trial and could lead to poor/insignificant and misleading outcomes in the interim reading. My optimism has gotten me into trouble before - so I'm cautious about this interim reading with small counts.

>>>It would be a great critical question for an analyst to ask at the CC: what is their rationale for an interim analysis at n=51 (vs. an analysis at 75 or 100), given that chances for an overwhelming success are marginal (out of statistical reasons simply due to the low sample size). They are very confident in leronlimab and so am I, and it seems they are thinking a 70-90% mortality reduction possible (?). Don't know.>>>