Your post is spot on though I hope you're wrong about the science and I still hold out hope for DCVax-L and Direct which I believe do work and should have been in common use almost 2-3 years ago (if the Phase 3 trial wrapped on time).
The dynamic you described is exactly why shareholders need to vote against anything like a share limit authorization (let alone a reverse split) unless we get money on the barrel first in terms of unambiguous Top Line Data. We're not talking about a promise of pursuing publication (been there, done that, as you said). We're not talking about some time frame for TLD being announced to encourage us to vote. No, they should, before any voting takes place announce TLD so we know what the pig in the poke is.
Even then, it is time to start having clear accountability and once TLD is released all the secrecy junk can and should be forever dispensed with and they should have a clear business plan for how they intend to spend the money they will be raising off of our backs by dilution.
Anything less than that is just going to result in a repeat of the same cycle of abuse over and over.
It is time to bring this to an end, one way or the other.
Naturally, the same individuals will come out of the woodwork to threaten us with dire consequences if we vote down an increase and a lot of shareholders got scared last time and voted yes and we all see where that ended up. Let us say they are right.
So what? At least with a no vote, this drama will finally come to an end and no one else can get sucked into this mess and maybe a bankruptcy while catastrophic for us, will at least put DCVax-L (and especially DCVax Direct) into more capable hands that might actually capitalize on it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
