JRIII, you misunderstand my explanation wrt the publication or lack thereof.
I am, in effect, saying it is their fault. I believe that Bosch spoke out of turn concerning the pub. Linda confirmed this when she expressed dissatisfaction that it had been mentioned. They also knew the data points and their level of comfortability with them. The publication news was out of the bag. It took on a life of its own. No doubt, rather than playing it down, they certainly used it as a carrot, giving potential investors a peek under an NDA. The data was artfully "sold" by management, in all probability LG, in convincing fashion to gain investors and thus needed funding.
They realised the possible difference in reactions by the medical community familiar with these things and ordinary investors/WallStreet. As it turns out, the revelations of the blinded article were not so ground breaking as to compel a top line prestigious journal to publish at all or, much more, expeditiously. And...as time went on, the data became even more dated and presumably possessed less impact. Certainly not enough to engender a sustained rise in the share price. In fact, the less than groundbreaking data, where expectations were extremely high, could conceivably cause disappointment and actually tank the pps, an outcome clearly at odds with their initial objective. Thus it is quite conceivable that they did not push for publication. In fact, they may have, indeed, changed their minds about publication of less than groundbreaking data which is rather stale by now because it serves no useful purpose anymore and may, in fact, become a liability. So we may now never see a publication. As I said, an excuse is available. Blame it on the journal. Too much time has passed. Including 2018 refresh data would essentially constitute a de novo submission. No timeline would be set as it is "out of their hands." If there is any explanation by management, it would likely be.....Gee, Sh*t happens. That damn journal. It's too late. By the time an updated article is vetted and published, it will be time for top line data. Wouldn't that be preferable, they would say. Publication gone. Swept under the rug. In the dustbin of history. Time is bought once again.
While it may not be a ruse and be entirely innocent, investors would be sour and demand that the SEC specifically investigate possible manipulation by NWBO management in order to inveigle investor funding. And this veiled threat would be a good thing. NWBO can ill afford such accusations and threats now. They are between a rock and a hard place. The trade off may well be that a pub will not be forthcoming after all, but top line will be announced relatively soon. The spring refresh 2018 would be the final data collection and data lock would be forthcoming with top line data announcement in the late summer/early fall time frame. I think that this is a distinct possibility. The only other possibility which I think is less likely is that a pub with very compelling data comes out shortly. But the delay and silence would be inexplicable. My speculation herein above sounds more likely, at least to me. Either way, I think we get information soon. Silence is no longer golden.
