Are we even sure we want more than moderate potency for a chronic use drug? Especially for a primary disease that progresses very slowly. I skimmed the article and it seems to me, as a non scientist, that the study was more geared towards cancer applications where generally more potency, relatively shorter treatment periods and less concerns regarding toxicity are what is in order  Chronic use drugs certainly needed to have toxicity profiles more along the lines of Apabetalone.  Would be nice if RVX scientists commented once in a while, in general, on this type of subject matter.  Don waxes on about the company's huge lead but seems oblivious to what is going on around RVX in the form of competition. His lack of apparent awareness is kind of scary.    

This reminds me of a conversation I had with Ewelina Kulikowski a few years back when I asked her about the research that had been done by an outside group on Apabetalone for treatment of colon cancer. The researchers suggested it was promising but she countered that their dosage's had been 80x stronger than what RVX had ever used. When I asked about modifying the drug or delivery she just smiled and said or use one of our other compounds. Of course we never get the see the other compounds because management seems less and less to have any sort of handle on how to run their business.