Questioning reasons for data lock being moved out again and again is legitimate. As one example, In 2017/2018, it took over a year for them to say they weren't really targeting 233 events, and instead had been listening to the SAB to extend the trial for further accrual. It is not unthinkable that their public (aka:10Q) reintroduction of the SAB once again into the mix, as it relates to timing for data lock, could alternatively be further accrual (which was previously/supposedly replaced by getting to data lock as the priority starting November 2018) -- we don't know. If they had instead stated the SAB is one of the groups to respond or consult upon any regulator SAP comments, and this might lead to some time lag, that would be one thing, but that is not what they said in the 10Q. Belittling investor concerns just raises the volume but not the quality of discussion. On the other side of poster equations, bringing up Gotti is likewise overly dramatic.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
