Companies generally won't discuss data before it's been presented under peer review in some venue. I have no idea which journal they're looking to be published in, but even they may have restrictions on what the company can say until they publish. In NWBO's case, the Journal was taking so long that they filed an Abstract at NYAS and Dr. Liau was supposed to make the presentation. She got Covid in England and AdamF openly said she was faking and called it a failure that she didn't want to present. It worked for the shorts, instead of moving up, as it had prior to the conference, it tanked on someone else presenting who couldn't really explain the trial that well. The Journal was issued some time later, but sadly the allegations of failure remain and can only be eliminated with an approval, which the UK should do in the next 30 days.
The same thing may apply here. If the company doesn't violate terms of presenting in the Journal they could probably submit an Abstract to an upcoming appropriate conference and make a peer reviewed presentation. Once made, the company would be free to discuss what was presented. Until either Journal or peer reviewed presentation companies don't discuss such data. I've seen little discussions about the people who've been running the trials. I believe that it's normal for the lead clinician to also take the lead in creating either an Abstract or Journal, and many of the other clinicians participate along with key scientific people from the company. The company can certainly package all the data and submit it to the regulators before it's been peer reviews, but frankly I like the idea that the regulators have a preview from a Journal or peer reviewed presentation at a major conference. Let's hope we get the Journal shortly, some discussion of what's in it, and the submission to at least one regulator.
Gary
Bullish
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
