From Adam's comment's page:

I've received some angry emails disagreeing with my new take on CHTP. These folks believe the changes planned to the droxidopa study increase -- not decrease -- the chances for success.

I guess that's true IF FDA agrees to the changes and IF the changes result in a positive study. That's a couple too many IFs for me, but I hope it works out for someone.

This I why I find Adam's statements ridiculous:

First, He's suppose to be a BIO-TECH analyst and he's afraid of an "IF"? Lets ask Adam a few "IF's"

"IF" Chelsea's management had decided to do nothing but un-blind 301 and present the data with current endpoints in place, would Adam F. still stand by his original statement that the risk profile is POSITIVE?

Wasn't his original call based on the potential success of 301, "IF" it met the current endpoint?

"IF" the FDA decides to maintain the current endpoints, aren't these the very same condition's that Adam based his review on?

It's not a matter of "IF" these potential changes result in a positive outcome, they are being asked for to ENHANCE the possibility of the desired outcome.

"IF" the company is correct in thier review of the 302 data, that the primary endpoint is not the most effective way to detremine the efficacy of Droxy and "IF" the FDA agrees, the timeline to approval has just been shortened.
An NDA could be filed sooner not later based on the findings in 302.

"IF" the FDA disagree's, then its no harm no foul as this was originally expected by Adam F. in the first place!