flipper, you've always got some new hype to focus on. It's literally almost a weekly thing, and this has been going on for years. But none of the hype ever pans out. It never once has turned out that what you think they are up to is actually what they were up to. And the truth always turns out to be highly disappointing.
Even presuming the holdup is entirely tied to this definitional change, as you say, then why haven't they just told us that? I mean, why not? How much angst and doubt would that alleviate with one simple statement? Why won't they do that?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because it isn't true, that's why. Again, the point is quite simple and everyone here wants to over-complicate it. If the data had come out really good, they would have released it. It's that simple. You don't sit on good data. Nobody does. Nobody ever has. When you have good news, you want to share it with the world as quickly as possible. That's just human nature. Now, when you have bad news . . .
Every excuse that gets thrown on the table seems to be some proposed solution to inevitable bad data - whether it's endpoint changes, using historical comps, or waiting for a new definition of GBM. None of these excuses is about a successful trial. That's a fact, and we all know it. This company is scrambling to salvage something, anything, out of this failed trial. They are playing games, just like they always have. And worse, they are liars.
In a few weeks you'll be on to a new excuse. I can feel it now. Maybe SNO again? Could be. I appreciate the optimism, but the nonsensical nature of the excuse-making, when this company has shown us over and over again that they are never doing what we think they are doing or want them to be doing, is tiresome.
