It is just an adaptive trial, in a global clinical trial where regulators had conflicts in policy / regulatory viewpoints, I believe, but not to sabotage the trial, based on my opinion, and only a theory, on ethics. The end result in my opinion is that the regulators have to coordinate even more closely, and to ultimately reach a rational result that is not even more controversial, so I would expect that they have provide more guidance. I do not think any regulator wants to be embarrassed either by failing a trial that everyone truly knows needs to be approved, or by being unnecessarily rigid and having egg on their face at the end of the process. Plus all the regulators are actually in mid-stride reforming their processes to address the very issues raised by the science in this trial, and those reforms are still being released and are not yet final in some places.
I do not think anyone, even LP is intentionally keeping things unnecessarily secret. I think the quiet period is wise, but also not embarrassing or ever implicitly criticizing any regulators is generally good practice if one wants to stay viable as well.
I think they also know how counterproductive shareholder anxieties and anger can be when misdirected at anyone, including regulators. I have seen it myself. It’s ugly and never helps. But people on bulletin boards do not listen. So keeping the process quiet is not just good practice, it’s important to avoid artificially create problems by people who think they are “helping”. Playing cards close to the vest is generally good practice.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
