This is an intriguing question, gfp, even though it brings up Dew's Zebra's law which I like quite a bit. LOL. You'll be a great half-back, fullback, quarterback... well what 'back' will the coach allow?
This is one of the unknowns in my book: Is CX717 dead for alzheimer's?
One the one hand, even if it isn't 'dead,' is it on life support in the sense would a pharma use it or want it? And, the Neurology division could well say, "no, use it for a proof of concept compound wth short tests like the PET they approved."
On the otherhand, the neurology division might allow a 14 day(or longer) phase IIa trial on top of the PET study, or even a six week trial, but Cortex may feel this strategy is too risky; ie. just use CX717 for acute administration for RD. One might ask is there risk(outside of financincial)in running a six week AD trial, using both clinical and surrogate endpoints such as ADAS-cog scores with f.EEG studies in tandem, but by the time the IND is filed(that takes time since Cortex has not prepared the table for such a trial)...2-3 months for lining up trial sites, one month in filing the IND, you are well into next year--how hard and how long would it take to complete this trial? And, it might be a doomed compound in the final analysis! Would it be a better use of resources to move ahead with an untainted compound.
If Cortex had an extra 18 million in the bank, such a go for broke strategy might make sense. This might be yet another benifit from partnering for Alzheimer's in the near future. A large pharma could do such a trial if they wanted.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
