I agree with you, Jmasdoc--IMO, "it" refers to the peer review process, not the writing of the paper to be submitted. As you say, we will see in due course.
I can only say that in my experience the board doing a peer review does not tell anyone when it will be published.
Also a peer review needs to be done before the information in it is "made public". In order to have a peer review the information needs to be studied by the reviewers and deemed "news worthy". This is similar to the FDA requiring a drug to show improvement over an existing drug. The review will not be published if the review board does not find it worth the mention. NOT AN ISSUE HERE THOUGH. I would think that they would want some kind of result to mention in the review so I would GUESS they would wait till at least 1 person showed some kind of reaction to the treatment. That would IMO have been accomplished around October of last year.
3 months to write it is very fast.
When the CEO says that "they are almost completed" that (to me) says they have completed their part of the process. the writing.
Believe me I hope I am wrong it will counteract the dilution a bit. But I am not counting on it. Peer reviews are not in the companies control in any way shape or form. They are in the same boat with us when it comes to this. The peer review comes out when it comes. Nobody including the people writing it know when or if it will be published.
I would just hate to see the PPS go back to .25 and then crash because the review doesnt show up in 3 weeks.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
