If there was something inherently flawed with our Phase 2 trial, or data, and we presented it to the FDA, they would have simply said, NO. Rather they asked for further information.
It's analogous, to someone asking if you would be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Would you say NO, or ask to see the last structural inspection?
I believe the intention of the FDA is positive in nature.
We were not invited by the FDA to attend the March meeting, rather Chris requested the meeting, to give us guidance as how to get our drug to these boys in dire need as quickly as possible. That's the point. The meeting was scheduled to provide "Guidance", nothing more. Not approval for AA, but simply guidance. That's is just what they got, and I believe it was very positive. It certainly shows that the small size of the trial is not a limiting factor for approval, as all the naysayers have pointed to, as the reason that the FDA would flatly turn us down.