Glad you're being "honest." :-) And thanks for expressing your opinion too. I mostly share it, incidentally. My "not bad" is driven by the fact that the final Part A results appear to be well below the interim results, and that we now have to really rely on the Part B results, which have the theoretically therapeutic dosing, but that the Part A's are good enough to justify hope in them. As for "amorphous" (?), how much more "morphous" would two other words be? Your suggestion of a better summary (and whose supporting detail of that summary opinion I did provide, quite copiously) is welcome.
Market Data 
Markets 
