You’ve changed arguments. All new ones.
On the regulatory front, I think the evidence again shows you’re wrong. I can’t think of another cancer treatment that a regulator is allowing to be sold at full cost before it is approved. Can you?
The other approvals in the UK are evidence to the contrary. The change in policies by the FDA on external control arms and explicitly discussing neurological cancers in the instances where it is discussed, specifically in that most recent journal article authored by FDA officials including Dr. Pazdur, as I have always said, almost suggests that this policy was custom designed for this trial. It wasn’t, it is a part of the 21st a century Cures Act and a Cancer moonshot efforts, that Dr. Pazdur is leading directly, but their references to neurological cancers I think shows that they are covert clearly aware of this trial and the questions about their own past methodology that it raised. I see no evidence that anything is wrong with the regulators, just the usual slowness. No, the trial is completed for purposes of approval, and I do not see this delayed to 2024. I guess there is worry about the stock rising, but when people snort a stock, that is a risk.
Dr. Liau certainly is promoting both the specific vaccine, with her presentation of the results in Europe and her traveling across country to promote the trial, use of external control arm and also her talk about the use of the adjuvants and the combination in virtually all of her recent talks. She has led a set of discussions across the country and internationally, over many months, and many of those lectures are available on YouTube, though not all.
Again, why falsely color the facts and narrative to make points that are not consistent with the current reality?
Interesting new arguments but false.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
