It doesn't matter now how one describes a phenomenon.
This is what happened:
HTBX did not completely present the data from P1 trials. Check the interim data from P2 HS-410 Monotherapy. This is in their slides. They did the same thing with HS-110 + opdivo interim data: presented 3 patients, with 2 doing well from low TIL to high TIL.
We can both agree that they have PARTIALLY presented the data. In other words, they cherrypicked good data and presented.
Then people like me have trusted the management. This trust made us to extrapolate from this GOOD data.
If one goes through HS-410 abstract, you can see how they told us about unblinded 85% RFS, 87.5% RFS in CIS. Compare this with what is in the real poster. One can't simply back off saying that it is the data from unblinded. The abstract and the data from poster do not match at all. If this is not MISREPRESENTATION, what else is?
I know you are bullish about HTBX. I were bullish too based on science, their papers, and Podack's ADC. But we need to distinguish "loving science" from "loving a ticker".
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
