This is an interesting take to me. If the data was so cut and dry, why didn't anyone say so earlier. When the trials first started the outcome was so encouraging, or so it seemed to many. Nearly all patients seemed to benefit early on. Slowly over time there started to be a spread in patient response and the Anavex-PLUS idea fell to the way side, something else was going on. Still quite a few patients were responding, but some were more than others. This spread grew more as time went on. While discouraging to some, not all the information is available. If we conducted a larger trial and got the same results and could not explain the difference, do you think the drug would be approved? In my opinion, while encouraging, I would think that that type of outcome would have warranted yet another trial. We need THIS trial to give us the approval, otherwise expect more dilution. That is what the precision approach is supposed to provide, insight into the distinguishing factors that resulted in the difference of response. We can tackle any other slight opportunities later, but this trial needs the best shot that it can get if you are interested in growing this company without selling short to BP or massive dillution.