Gary, I appreciate your desire to find a rational explanation for what may be completely irrational, but unfortunately this is not quite how the process works.
Yes, it is the primary author whom the journal will communicate with, but it is the company that calls the shots, down to deciding who will be the primary author. While it would be incredibly bad form and send a horrible message not to have LL be the primary author on this publication, the company is not required to give her that position unless the contract with UCLA stipulated that case which I highly doubt that it did. LL will require the company to provide the analysis and data to answer any queries that the editors may have. I guarantee that Marnix Bosch will also be an author which adds professional courtesy to an equation that does not require it. LL cannot put in print anything that the company does not sign off on with regards to the publication of this clinical trial data. They cannot force her to say things that she does not believe, but they can prevent her from saying things that they do not believe in that publication. Her IIT combo trial is a different story, she owns that data.
I can go on and on about this, but it suffices to say that I cannot be convinced that LL does not place a very high priority on releasing this data to her colleagues around the world in peer reviewed fashion and with urgency. I do not know LL personally but I do know the LL(s) for several other disease states personally and have had enough visibility into her thought process to say this with a high degree of certainty.
If the data is being released via publication, there is likely nothing preventing them from issuing a PR with TLD right this instant. However, if the data is being released at SNO, they cannot release a PR until SNO approves them to do so or SNO releases the abstract on Friday morning.
