HR I understand your concerns and partially agree.
Greet has recently repeated that nothing matters but the "DATA" ... he has referenced the 298 events as being significant in terms of the longer it takes to attain the number the greater the indication that something "outside" of standard of Care is responsible. You can make up your own minds in terms of what that something is...(Multikine)
as George stated the 298 Events had become significant because the trial is taking longer than expected. If it had ended earlier then the 298 would not have the same significance that is does now.
in previous months I would have categorize the 298 as "material" but I think as we progress further into the year without hitting the number this is why Cel Sci has pivoted on the 298 events going from being "material" to being "important" statistical news.
The longer we take to get to 298 makes it LESS "material" why ?... because if we reference the statistical models they will give us data about the projected efficacy based on the time it takes to achieve the 298 number.
So for example if today was Dec 15 2019, based on survival statistics, would the 298 number be of significance? probably not because it would just be a number signifying "when" the study will officially end and we would be focused on getting our hands on the un-blinded trial DATA to "confirm" outcome results that the Stats would already be pointing to showing a "very high" chance of success.
So Yes HR I think Greet has changed his tune but I think it's based on now looking "beyond" the 298 number to the Data which will vindicate him and the company.
He has stated that institutions want share compensation before initiating coverage, which he does not want to do. He has come this far why give away shares now when in a few months they will be writing coverage for free
He has also changed his tune from a drug with the intent to "extend" lives to a drug with the intent to "cure".
Why all of a sudden the changes in stance. They don't want outside financing, no more new warrants, analyst coverage without shares, more insider buys, stock option plans, less buyout talk...
I think what you are hearing from Greet is a confidence that we have already "past" a few important statistical thresholds for "probable" success, therefore the 298 is having less and less meaning to Cel Sci as the weeks move on(it's a bit convoluted but I hope you are following my reasoning)
Mark I agree that based on the way he speaks, with a dismissive tone his main intentions has not been relayed clearly.
