Doc, I appreciate the thoughts. I am not saying NWBO is hiding anything. That is absolutely NOT my argument. And a delay to determine how to describe results that might be interpreted by some as good or bad depending on their mindset is a large part of the job of management.
I am being very clear here. There is a specific rule, which gives 4 days to disclose, for some mandatory items. There are other items that are optional, and there is no 4 day requirement for optional disclosures.
Receiving data is not always immediately described as good or bad. It requires careful analysis, with the relevant internal advisors, SAB, trial managers, lawyers, members of the management team and possibly members of the board. Clarification may be sought on details.
Silence or absence of information is not Proof of something. That is just a truism. But there are enough indirect and direct indicia of likely results, including blinded data and soft inferences, to make positive guesses without stating that there is a law that makes positive results certain, and manufacturing a false axiom, based on a law that is not exactly relevant.
We know they are always subject to fraud accusations if they are not honest. We know they will have to comment at some point, and we know that withholding a total failure is unlikely, but mostly unlikely because we know the blinded data.
What is happening instead is people won’t assert that these are their beliefs, they wish instead to assert that there is an almost natural law, an axiom, that we would know if the trial was “negative”. We already freaking know what we need to know to be just as comfortable, and no one needs to make up fake axioms to induce their own confidence or the confidence of others. And most importantly, informed persons should not do that. I think Joan and Smith are nice people, probably quite well informed, and this will likely be the only matter upon which I would vigorously disagree with them, but I think, given the way the false idea has spread, not least because of the help of some, it needs to be popped before it becomes another one of those ripe truisms that is not true, that misleads investors in far worse prospects.
Anyway, that is just again to clarify... I am not a bear, I am not saying something bad has happened, obviously I am. It saying that, despite the poor logic of Anders. And I am not saying they are actively “hiding” something.
They have said they will tell us, as soon as they can. I take that at face value as likely true. I do not think, or believe that there is necessarily something negative at all. Often I think “no news is good news”. That remains the case here, but not because there is an axiom based on a regulation that is not the relevant applicable law that encourages quick transparency at the soonest and best possible moment.
The rules are complex. The laws are complex. People who try to create these simplistic axioms to inform investors, are not doing themselves any favors.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
