JR111,
I think you have me confused with another poster. I don't recall ever saying the price is irrelevant. The price is always relevant to someone for some reason. For some the price represents too much risk. For others the price might be viewed as a buying opportunity. For some it is a current inconvenience to tolerate while complaining about it. For others it is at a point that they just need to wait a while longer to see the price correct. So no, I do not view the price as irrelevant.
As for what I seem to be saying, to you, vs what I am saying, there is a difference. I am saying that Linda made it her mission to make sure DCVax-L gets across the finish line and she has shown that this is exactly what she plans to do. She was obviously willing to accept help under the right conditions, ie Mr. Neil Woodford. Those conditions certainly included not surrendering control of the company or it's trial progress to that end. Linda has kept this trial moving forward and now as we approach the end, a sudden influx of investor angst magically appears. Save the angst for after November or if you think this is going to tank, even temporarily, you can always sell your shares and get back in later if you want and then you can at least say you acted on your angst and were rewarded for it.
Now as far as you saying "They blew the trial..." you must joking. You can't tell me why the last patients were apparently all treatment arm patients and yet I have been saying it was due to a finding of efficacy for one reason or another for quite a while now and well before anyone saw the actual numbers of enrollees in treatment vs placebo. A blown trial? Hardly. Clinicians like Dr. Ashkan like what they are seeing. Hard to understand? Sure, and that's how they were able to continue the trial because some would claim futility and try to tank the price while others would claim efficacy.
If someone leaked non adjudicated PFS eventing to outside parties and those parties acted on that information they might be in for a big surprise at the end of the trial when adjudication takes place and whoops, treatment effect might turn out to be a factor. Bummer for those so sure of themselves if this turns out to be the case and surveilance indicates they had their hands in the cookie jar right? Best wishes.
