Weeks, not months, of course, my mistake there, around 2.8 years. I am thinking if anyone showed continuous improvement for that much time it would cause some damage to the "it's just placebo effect" argument.
I think it is good news as the timeline for reporting had been expected @ 3 years + 5 weeks or 161 weeks. TGD moved the timeline up a full quarter so the 2-73 data would be available for this conference.
If the data were ho-hum or relatively the same as presented @ AAIC, then there would be no push to present "late breaking" data @ CTAD
I agree with this thinking. There are rules for late breaking which require warranted only presentations.