One final rewrite to make the point very clear,
As most of you know, I’ve been a long-term shareholder for many years, and like everyone else, I am frustrated by the long silence from management. But let’s be absolutely clear: voting “NO” is not a strategy — it’s self-sabotage. It’s the financial equivalent of burning down your own house just because you’re angry at the plumbing.
I understand the frustration. I’ve been here for the science, for the data, and for the mission longer than most. But letting that frustration drive a destructive vote would be a gift to the very people who want this company to fail.
There are only a few realistic scenarios for the MAA:
1. The MAA gets granted before the ASM.
If that happens — and it very well might — the entire issue becomes irrelevant because the vote will pass without issue.
2. The MAA has already been denied.
There is zero indication of that. I consider this scenario so improbable that it’s not worth even discussing.
3. The MAA is delayed — possibly 1 to 12 months.
This is a real possibility, and frankly, it is the only one that demands serious thought. Delays can happen for a dozen valid reasons: extended RFIs, the MHRA being extremely thorough, reviewing EDEN, or evaluating any of several broader indications. Some of these explanations are more likely than others, but none of them justify detonating the entire company.
If the vote is “YES,” then a delay, even a long one, is just that — a delay. Inconvenient? Yes. Frustrating? Absolutely. But it still leads to the same outcome: approval, value, and vindication.
If you vote “NO,” you eliminate that possibility entirely. You turn a temporary delay into a catastrophe. A “NO” vote would cripple the company, destroy its ability to function as a going concern, and hand everything — literally everything — to KG and the group waiting to take this company apart. You would be converting a potentially life-changing investment into a guaranteed loss. You would be taking the victory that is still within reach and throwing it directly into the shredder.
Ask yourself: do you really want to give the shorts and the detractors exactly what they've been begging for?
And let’s be blunt. If the company were to come out before the ASM and announce, “The MAA might take 12 more months,” that announcement alone could kill the company. It would tank confidence, embolden hostile actors, and place the entire enterprise at risk — for no reason other than impatience. So no, they cannot responsibly make such an announcement.
If you have trusted this company through years of far worse circumstances, do not choose this moment — right before the finish line — to cut them off at the knees. That would not be “showing them.” It would be showing KG and his allies that the shareholders can be manipulated into doing their work for them.
We are too close, and we have waited too long, to let anger destroy the outcome we’ve all been fighting for.
Vote YES — not to reward management, but to keep the door open to the outcome we actually want.
Market Data 
Markets 
