You seem to be suggesting that just because the company isn't bankrupt she's done a good job. I disagree. Technically it is bankrupt, and her management has been a disaster of epic proportions. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my point of view, while your point of view depends entirely on a confluence of highly unlikely occurrences.
They blew the trial and they know it, and now they are trying to cover their mess by manufacturing some backdoor approval that is a total shot in the dark. That's what all the evidence is pointing to, and though you try to pretend otherwise you know it, too. The stock has free-fallen from $12 to penny status, destroying all shareholder value while the insiders have gotten rich. Do you deny that? Are you OK with that? You have stated that the stock price is irrelevant until they unblind, which is just incomprehensible to me. How can it be irrelevant? If it had held even half of its peak value imagine where it would be if all of your unlikely occurrences were to occur. But no, we are at 23 cents and sinking fast, so where will it be if all of your unlikely occurrences were to occur now? The stock price is not irrelevant – ever! It is the only reason we are here, as investors. Maybe you are here for a different reason, being a doctor and all, but if that is the case then why are you posting on a board for investors?
Here is the most important question: Why haven't they unblinded the trial? Why is this trial still going more than two years past primary endpoint? And that question leads to this one: Why are they doing a spring refresh if they are going to unblind right after? Why not just unblind? What's the point of a spring refresh and the expense that goes with it when they could just stop the trial and take the blinders off? If they are waiting for 36 months past enrollment to unblind then why are they doing a spring refresh right before that all-important threshold? Has anyone else asked this simple question? Why not just unblind at 36 months, right? What's the point of a spring refresh? If 36 months past final enrollment doesn't occur until August, then why would they spend money to do a spring refresh so close to this critical date, a date that only became critical when somebody threw it out a couple of months ago as a possible explanation for the company's inaction and total silence? None of it adds up
The people on this board who claim to know so much about the protocols medical trials are supposed to follow in order to attain FDA approval should know that this one doesn't fit the protocols in the least. But instead they just ignore the evidence in front of their faces and in delusion blame every possible outside factor for this company's failings. I hate to break it to you but management doesn't have any intention of unblinding this trial. Why? Because It is way off the tracks, and it all falls entirely on Good Job Linda.
