Yes, wasn't the initial talk about the combination therapy trial partnerships really started by the scientists, at the University, talking about what would be best to scientifically have the best results with the vaccine? That was about the science, not a promise to investors.
However, subsequently, the company reported details that, honestly, if they lied, would be actionable. And I don't see anyone suggesting that they lied, only complaining that they have not signed such partnerships.
On the other hand, one can also imagine similar voices complaining about the timing, or details of such partnerships, whenever they are signed, because, whenever that moment is, it won't be to anyone's advantage, or I suspect that is how some would color most positive developments, no matter the reality.
I'd imagine, if the stock went up 10 times in a week, the same voices would be suggesting it is wholly unmerited, and must crash again. In that context, it becomes very hard to imagine such voices being all that interested in the real facts as they evolve, or in the good of the patients, or the science, in the long-run. But that's purely speculative on my part. Clearly.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
