1) the 10K old risk factors section is not relevant to the issue of timing;
2) every statement if every expert, the JAMA article and its supplements, the doctors who participated in the trial and authored the paper, the annual report text I gave you from 2019, the verbal statements of numerous doctors and the company’s statements that are also subject to legal consequence if they are false or lies, contradict your viewpoint.
You’re willing to claim that a risk statement that is general not specific is valid because it is subject to penalties but not accept affirmative statements of fact given numerous times that are also subject to the same rules.
Seems like your viewpoint is riddled with contradictions.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
