I happen to be a scientist. A mathematician and statistician by profession. With a broad background in many scientific areas including molecular biology, quantum mechanics, computer science, fluid mechanics, finance, market microstructure...
The only reason I support this article, fully and entirely, is because it is both a factual and correct analysis of these facts. Facts and correct analysis. It's not that hard, but magically Cytodyn is never capable of getting both of these straight.
The company papers are filled with omissions of critical pieces that, when rebuilt from the provided data, exactly as this article did, reveal exactly the opposite picture.
Another example not illustrated in the article: corrections for the multiplicity of the tests performed. Search for "corr" (correction) or "bonf" (bonferonni) or "holm" (holm-bonferonni) or "hoch" (hochberg) or "seq" (sequential). These are nowhere in the entire document. Any junior statistician would be fired for missing this crucial part of any data analysis involving multiple p-value tests. This is so glaring obvious to any statistician.
It's like not reporting the number of deaths. Let me restate that: not reporting the number of tests performed is akin to not reporting the number of deaths. It's a major mistake that makes any p-value irrelevant (may have to be multiplied by x50 or more if it had not been corrected according to the number of tests performed).
I believe the company is intentionally lying to the market and as such may be liable.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
