InvestorsHub Logo

norisknorewards

11/03/21 6:54 PM

#414679 RE: IkeEsq #414674

i think the only difference this time, though potentially relevant, is we have data lock, and a year post datalock, at some point, something is going to give.

right?

meh,

probably not. tick tock tick tock.......

flipper44

11/03/21 7:17 PM

#414684 RE: IkeEsq #414674

LP set the precedent of stating at which large conferences they would not share TLD ( she thought it was “important” to do that). The first one was ASCO 2021. She has not done this for SNO 2021. If she wants to avoid “soul killing,” as you put it, she’d simply let people know no TLD surprises at SNO 2021. Maybe she does not know one way or the other yet.

Look, journals aren’t totally unselfish. They want any pre-journal release, if there is one, at a conference, to be bare bones. If the TLD is last but not least to be accepted at SNO, as an LBA, it could be followed on Sunday evening or Monday evening by a journal article(s). The release at a conference would obviously help prime peer discourse, followed by a comprehensive journal publication(s).

If it’s not going to be SNO, LP could do like she did at the ASM (re: no ASCO), and say no SNO 2021, but publication appears close. So far she has chosen not to do that.



CherryTree1

11/03/21 7:36 PM

#414687 RE: IkeEsq #414674

I agree that short interest is negligible at this point Ike . . .
but what we don't know is how many naked shorts if any are out there.
Some here believed there could be or could have been at one time 200 million or more . . .
but don't really know and don't know if even there was that many at some point if they have covered a good portion of them by now.

I agree LP is focused on gaining approval not on vengeance for getting screwed the last 5 years by this big money thugs/goons . . .
but bet she wouldn't mind giving them a taste of there own medicine . . .
we will see very soon.