johnking, re: "Basically all we should have gone for (in hindsight) is the extension of Marine less the Cve and Statin language", while I'm sure the more savy of amrn holders were aware of the wording, I think it blindsided the bulk of us when the BD's came out.
Well said.
How many times did we all use the phrases like 'same drug only a new indication', or 'a new popluation', a mere extension of what was already approved, thinking solely of a 200-499 trig level.
And this was obviously the reason for the huge sell-off when the BD's hit. It was an eye opener that with our/my tunnel vision for the multiple benefits and the massive amount of outstanding science presented, I for one, didnt see the forest for the trees.
I'm sure many of the more learned folks here understood it, but I personally did not grasp that so much of CVE & statin language was included in the ANCHOR application for approval or that it would be a requirement to prove to the panel that it did in fact reduce CVE
Market Data 
Markets 
