I disagree with many of your characterizations and conclusions. I think people can interpret facts in different ways.
But I agree that creating false axioms based upon a bad understanding of the law, is no way to argue in favor of a company.
I’m definitely not a bear, but I do think people should be more careful making up bad axioms.
I do not disagree with LP, and their flexible trial has allowed them to change details along the way, and so long as they were blind, I think the FDA will and likely has accepted that change, to the best degree that the FDA approves such things, with the right of a regulator to ask questions at any time and to possibly change its mind, if they think it merits that...
I think the necessary uncertainty that the FDA maintains in its processes mitigate in favor of silence, because as we know, facts can be recharacterized, and cast in a negative light. So silence is golden for many reasons. And ambiguity is often a necessary part of investing in companies like NWBO, which can also be cast in a falsely negative light.
But thanks for the support on the issue. I appreciate it.