None of what you just wrote makes sense .
"good news she could have disclosed in 2015 regarding the screening hold which, obviously for fiduciary and strategic reasons she chose not to"
You know this because of extensive discussions with the management ?? Because fiduciary duty would have required to do the exact opposite .
Before you claim some restrictions to release the news to protect integrity of the trial etc , then why wasn't the reason disclosed after last patient was enrolled/recruited, or after the data was locked , or after final results were published or even after submission to RA.
You are again throwing pure assumptions almost as facts with no evidence to back up your speculation