I respectfully, disagree. Why? I'm not sure if it was realistic at that time in February to correct the mistake, particularly if the use of the word "direct" was meant to give a false impression of a DIRECT update was coming in the first place. None of us need reminding that the stock price is heavily manipulated. Correcting whatever false impression out there existed that an update was coming would have essentially given the shorts the green light they needed to short the stock; which would have been particularly descructive to do at the time, as many here pointed out a capital raise was needed sooner than later. And thus, in my opinion, it was in all of our best interest as shareholders to focus on the underlying question and avoid providing an update on the exact timeline. The last time they gave an accurate timeline was on the Ph III trial extension, back in August, and the shorts completely took advantage of that. Even by Pyrr's admission, he bought puts. Imagine what might have happened in this case? I can, and therefore, believe that only thing we should have been given at the time was an accurate response to the true question. In this case there's no reason to believe that she didn't provide an honest answer. The AACR abstract points that she likely did.
But, I do agree with from an integrity standpoint, that her behavior at times would not be accepted from a corporate 500 company. But this biotech is far from one yet.
Aging data, like a fine craft brew is a great analogy. That must be a fun hobby! The city of Edinburgh, Scotland, smells like hops and every time I drink a craft, which isn't often, I'm reminded of it. :)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
