I believe this is a healthy perspective. The true test of management’s genius or failure will be in the 90 days following approval. If they come out strong with automation, partnerships, funding, uplisting, and a genuine public relations effort with investors, we’ll know they were executing a long, sophisticated, and risky strategy. However, if we enter another vague quiet period, it’s safe to assume they’re not very good at this.
Flipper’s theories about the December readout over the past few weeks are very convincing to me. The company’s frustrating actions in recent years could make sense if the narrative turns out to be, "It was always about the combo results."
I don't believe the JAMA publication, TLD, or Nature were mishandled. Instead, the company may have decided it wasn't ready for the attention a PR push would bring. My evidence is Linda’s comments at the 2020 ASM, where she expressed frustration over the trial endpoints change being revealed, which led to our rise to $2.50. It unnerved her because a major investor might have created another Woodford-shaped problem for her.
I don’t think I’m being overly generous here. It makes no sense to say they’re bad at running a company while being good at commercializing immunotherapy at scale. I’ll forgive the obfuscation, delays, and even dishonesty if it’s all in service of a bigger narrative that we just can’t fully see yet.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
