RE: RE: RE: RE: Comment from Company While I think it would be interesting to see a brief comment from RVX on this issue I don't think it is a big deal for the same reasons as outlined by other posters. I would find it to be a situation of conflict if Dr. Kastelein were to be involved in the writing of the SUSTAIN peer reviewed paper.
More importantly I agree with the other posters stating that RVX will be judged on it's own merits. As far as AHA 2010 goes I would agree that Merck's apparent success had some effect on the RVX share price. However I think that the largest contributors to the drop in share price then was that at the time RVX did not achieve a statisticly significant endpoint on the primary target for ASSERT, had concerns raised regarding ALT's and most importantly failed to maintain control of their message by announcing something that was less than an unequivocal success at huge industry event. This was clearly a "rookie mistake" as no one gives the small player the time and the coverage for explanation while everyone is willing listen to whatever the larger player feeds them, in this case Merck was allowed some free shots at RVX.
Personally, I have been an investor/trader in RVX because I believe that the science is groundbreaking and will pay off. This however has always been tempered, in my view, by a senior management that is mediocre at best. I hope McCaffrey at this juncture is listenning hard to a very knowledgeable board. Other than great ASSURE results, which are paramount, I think the best thing that could happen to RVX would be for McCaffrey to step aside and let someone with more experience and industry respect take the helm. If either Arthur Higgins or Ken Zuerblis was interested in assuming leadership I think it would have an immediate, positive impact on RVX. We are probably still a little too small for that dream to come true.