RE:RE:RE:share priceWell said BDAZ, further to your point I don't understand why the management at RVX has never spent any time proactively sharing what a few basic outcome scenario's might have meant in the real world as far as the future for RVX-208 and it's successors. If the general shareholder base had understood that part of the reason for a primary endpoint of .6% reduction in PAV was simply because of outcome probability vs finances, and that not achieving that end point was not the end of the world, I think we all might have been spared some of this debacle. Actually I think DM finally did a decent job on a conference call and to a degree addressed what you just said. To bad it wasn't in the form of proactive investor education as opposed to reactive damage control.
I would be in your latter group of longs who believes there is still significant value in RVX's IP and now it is up to management to find a way to best monetize it.