1) Your observed "I disagree. It is highly unusual for so many authors to be on a publication. It is also unusual to include all of the participating doctors as authors. Typically only the authors that substantially contributed to the writing of the publication and to the actual R&D of the drug are included...simply administering the vaccine to patients would not normally merit inclusion as an author on a peer-reviewed publication. I suspect that there is a reason so many researchers want to be on this publication."
It strongly suggests the reason for the halt is FDA-related which was induced by discord of maybe one or two doc in the trial, who were probably phoned into a sedated conversation by AF or the kind. There might also be financial incentives involved (for more see my previous posts);
The fact if the publication is published with 65 authors will be in and by itself very significant. Not only will it mean that the trial as it is is backed by almost all doc investigators involved in the trial, so the discord over potentially various issues is over, which is also evidenced by the lifting of the halt by FDA in last Feb, but it will also mean the contents (blended, blinded data) are significant, maybe unprecedentedly significant.
2) the naysayers can say anything and post as many posts in as many message boards as any one can find, the motives behind are nothing but
a) As it has been observed and strongly suspected, there are tenacious persistent force which wants to drive the company to bankruptcy or at least into a very difficult financial thus bargaining situation. This force is most powerful and relentless, probably backed by big pharms;
b) Some individuals seeking to get in the stock at a price as low as possible who thinks by bad mouthing the stock they can just achieve that when a definite sign of success is revealed (kind of conservative investing). When the time comes, they want to get in the stock in stealth while continually badmonthing or discount the significant news as long as they have not got enough. These are some savvy retail investors who have been burned badly in their previous experience investing in small biotech;
C) Anyone in between a) and b) willingly and unwillingly.
By now, we should be clear who are in these categories, and the best approach seems to make them dry, not reply to any of their posts.
Nonetheless, be prepare financially,mentally and technically, when the publication comes out, all these naysayers will make any effort possible to discount its significance regardless. But with overwhelming detail data though blinded/blended, a mountain will be moved!
AI
