In NWBO's position everything shared is considered self promotion by those who want nothing good said about their products by them. They have a skeleton staff and rely on the doctors at UCLA and occasionally Dr. Bosch to explain the science to the point of piquing interest but not giving away too much about the recipes. Dr. Bosch is The Expert in my opinion when it comes to Direct and Dr. Linda Liau is the expert on L with additional understanding of mechanisms of action and improvements added into by others along the way including what the Germans and Cognate were able to do to improve the basic formula and understanding of MO. As the understanding of DC subsets evolved I believe the quest to improve upon L Sub Rosa began and was done legitimately based on the looseness of the original IND. This may be one of the reasons we have been waiting so long for results. Optimizing DC technology truly is an art that requires a deep understanding of the various more specific functions of DC subsets especially in the use of L. Direct seemed to kind of leap frog the need for this a little bit but I believe their study of Direct brought them to a better understanding of how to improve Direct and L as well. This became gradually very clear to me a little over 2 years ago. To answer your question more directly, not everything that I have read in the public domain is well knitted together there or well understood as common knowledge. I believe NWBO has good reason to keep it that way to protect what advantage they still have in their understanding of DCs over competitors who would now like to catch up while NWBO apparently waits on results. Best wishes.