I never said that there was no way you were right, just that there was another way to look at the information we had. In all, I think that the news is more neutral than negative (market reaction seems to agree), but that's neither here nor there, and certainly my interpretation.
The one thing I'd respond to from your post is "interim analysis at 40 patients - was not part of original requirement". This clearly isn't an additional "requirement" placed on CYDY. This is a bone thrown to the company and to investors. Among all of the very reasonable things that we all can and have debated on this forum, efficacy of the drug itself is about lowest on the list. The evidence we have, from all of the previous trials, is that the drug works pretty well most of the time. This will allow the company to put out interim data, including the drug vs. placebo analysis, within several weeks, regardless of the minor delay in the trial overall. In terms of news that will derisk the investment significantly (i.e. actual results), this is nearly equal to the FDA saying that 40 patients was sufficient, go ahead and unblind. This part of the PR was markedly positive, in my opinion, and likely why the market shrugged off the small delay.
Another 10 patients in combo and more patients in mono (for safety, and who were going to be enrolled and dosed anyway) does mean a slight delay, but positive interim endpoint results would likely result in the ability to raise funds on much better terms. Then an additional month or two to get combo fully enrolled is far less painful, unless you need your returns ASAP.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
