as i recall, Cyrus came in and spent a lot of time

as i recall, Cyrus came in and spent a lot of time on a thorough "cost / benefit" analysis of the indications we were pursuing. I think this was 100% the right approach, because under Nader, we were firing in every conceivable direction - trying to chase 20 indications while being a small company with limited resources. It seemed that Cyrus saw HIV as a smaller market with lots of competitors (vs NASH and cancer) and viewed the cost of getting the BLA done (having to reconstruct data sets, etc.) as not being worth the benefit of a smaller market. Instead, the reasoning was, let's pursue bigger markets with our limited time and resources. Again, that all made a lot of sense.

But we're in a different place, and i'm excited to hear what Dr Jay has to say on this. What has changed in the past year or so? I want the good as well as the bad. Clearly NASH won't go away - but is it possible that market doesn't shrink as a result of these weight loss drugs (which seem destined to become ubuquitous)? And over the past year or so, have competitors made progress in the market? Maybe none of those things have changed - but it would be great to get his view. And in cancer, has that become more attractive, less attractive?

From an HIV standpoint, maybe we have a shorter path to market (even if it's a smaller market) - that could be a really nice win.

For me, while I appreciate what Cyrus did with the cost benefit analysis and chasing bigger markets - it sure would be nice to find the shortest path to putting some points on the board by getting this drug to market (whatever that market is) and becoming a revenue generating company. Again, Dr Jay brings a lot more experience and a broader perspective - can't wait to hear his opinion of the short, medium and long-term path for us.