Initial thoughts
The reason why the clinical data looks worse at a few timepoint is that some of the NR patients from the earlier timepoints exited the study and their data was carried forward in one step across the board all the way to 450 days. That often happens as NR's can do that while CR's are still followed and only move forward one 3m check point at a time.
Overall, the data looks about the same to me in that we always found that the optimized CR was about 60% and for all those patients we would lose about 20-30% over time. That was before they got the chance to re-treat any of the previous NR patients.
I like that they are specific about 5 new sites being added. That is specific enough that I hope that they are close to finalizing those sites for going forward. If so, it represents a 50% increase in sites for the study.
I still believe in the science but the management is still not sharing enough specifics that make it so we have faith in them. Specifics on why it is so slow to gather what the FDA has asked for. Specifics on money sources as PP's cannot keep going on like this.