Reading the exchange where you attempted to educate a few of the simpler minded individuals here about how things aren't always black and white provided me great amusement. "How could you betray us, biosectinvestor? We thought you were one of the team!"
By the time it devolved into name calling, I was rolling on the floor laughing. Logic can be a tricky thing, and not all of us - even those who purport to be lawyers - can see it when it runs counter to our much-hoped-for narratives.
How many times have we read posts that state matter-of-factly the blinded, blended interim data released in 2018 shows DCVax "meeting the endpoints easily", and therefore THE FINAL TRIAL RESULTS MUST BE GOOD! This statement is simply untrue and represents bad logic.
Multiple posts recently have stated matter-of-factly there is a four-day rule that requires companies to disclose material information immediately, and that since NWBO is unblinded, has not reported trial failure, and it has been more than four days, that therefore THE TRIAL RESULTS MUST BE GOOD! Again, this is incredibly bad logic. Not to mention NWBO's total disregard for regulatory rules in the first place, there are infinite legal avenues one can use to get around the "four-day rule".
I'm not sure how you explain the kind of thinking that simplifies complex issues with so many unknowns in a way that satisfies only one perspective - the perspective that one wants so badly to be true. Is it immaturity and lack of experience? Education level? IQ level? Coordinated pumping? I don't know the answer, but I do think that what your exchange comes down to, as much as anything, is a sense of betrayal. They consider you one of the team, and can't imagine you daring to present a scenario that includes even the possibility of an outcome other than complete and total success for NWBO because that's all they can understand and all they want to understand. Never mind that logic dictates conclusions must support carefully examined and established premises.
I think some of these folks are in for a rude awakening when the truth of this debacle becomes known. There are many alternative explanations for why NWBO is refusing to release the data. The CEO has already told us as much. They learned the trial failed on the primary endpoint five years ago, which she as much as acknowledged in her response letter to the FDA begging them not to totally disregard trials that fail on the primary. Now, why would she have written that? Then she gave us another clue when she said more recently that regardless of outcome she hopes this trial will make an important contribution to the field of cancer research. Now, why would she say such a thing unless . . .?
There are a thousand things that could be happening here with this delay, and not many of them suggest a positive outcome. Are they having a hard time getting the regulators to sign off on their new endpoints? After all, changing the endpoints on a 13-year-old trial at the last minute is a fairly radical approach to medical research. Were they counting on the FDA to sign off, and that's why they went ahead and locked the data? Without FDA approval of the new endpoints, they are in a bad spot. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we soon learn they have been writing a piece for publication that is all about how this trial should be viewed as a success even though it was technically a failure. The point would be to present the failed data in such a way that it doesn't result in the share price completely crashing and the company going belly up. That's a tricky piece to write, and I can see how it might take some time.
