Independent

[flipper44]

It appears Lykiri is an expert in the subtleties of MHRA FOI requests.

See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176569436

To me, however, if Lykiri is correct, it simply implies the maa remains active (which is obviously a good thing), and imo, utilizing a (likely) third RFI to last until ten year complete data maturity and, again in my opinion, perhaps also last post Survaxm required primary endpoint reporting date. I’ve already described why awaiting these events might be important to NWBO.

So, we know what Lykiri feels strongly Exwannabe was recently incorrect about in the post above.

What do I feel Ex has been verifiably wrong about here recently? He is wrong about the Survaxm primary analysis event number trigger. How do I know he is wrong? Because I was also wrong initially a number of weeks back (but with a different number), but AI kept telling me I was wrong and it suggested a third incorrect number, ha ha, so I went back to clinicaltrials.gov and low and behold the actual updated PDF link for the actual trial protocol is way down at the bottom of several pages. Instead of saying a multi-interpretational percent like MimiVax publicly does, or guessing SWAGS, like Exwannabe did, the PDF protocol was very clear. 71 events required for interim analysis, 142 events required for primary endpoint analysis.

Funny thing is, I suspect Ex knew all this and was playing dumb. For whatever reason.

Anyway, to me, as long as MimiVax cares about their own public statements, they intend to follow regulatory steps, transparency and report each milestone publicly. From everything I’ve learned, that means they must report primary results by August 18, 2025 midnight (one year following primary completion date (or request extension which they have not done at this late hour)) (grace of one day?), or be on the wrong side of regulators, $12,000.00 per day fines and transparency, imo. They clearly have more reason to follow through than just public promises, because they have other earlier stage trials (perhaps more promising) with Survaxm in other indications and must be on good terms with regulators.

Ex, imo, knows his misleading guess of 180 events instead of actual 142 events leads to possibly next year instead of already occurred, Ex knows MimiVax timely and promptly updated their expected primary completion date after full enrollment, he thus knows he was B.S.ing when he implied MimiVax was lazy — “sloppy” — about their updated estimated completion date and everybody does that. He knows estimated completion dates are not “meaningless” anymore. He knows he was B.S.ing when he said results would also further have to wait for a Journal article. I mean man, he’s pulling out all stops of B.S. Why?

That’s a lot of condensed misleading to distract from a likely upcoming near term Survaxm event. One where he’s otherwise willing to predict Survaxm iib’s trial likely forthcoming statistical insignificance (which I agree with), but sides with their control doing very well, supposedly as well as DCVax-l (I disagree with), because, he argues, Survaxm had even better more on average complete resections all else being equal.** (It is true Survaxm 2b trial had more complete resections on average than the DCVax-l phase iii trial.)

In reality, I think he is simply misdirecting bears and playing them, while knowing what the long game likely is here. Why try to keep longs away and bears hopeful? He can argue nothing is resolved until it’s resolved by outcome reporting, and he can play people until his misdirections are obvious. In short, I agree with whomever said Ex is probably long at this point with a lot of cheap shares. I don’t pretend to know what he’s been doing here prior to that? Paid, flipping, suppressing for a third party BP, who knows?

(** If L wins, despite this resection disadvantage, Ex’s game is over.)