Thanks Ou,
This is actually the response I anticipated coming from my not so subtle challenge to f3tt3f. There is a big distinction. As you know, Cyclacel was talking after the trial results specifically about overall survival (I would have said the same thing where OS was observed (388 versus 218 days respectively). Cyclacel did not use the same description for PFS. Speaking for myself, this distinction separates the comparison of Cyclacel with the NWBO context irrevocably.
I also expected f3tt3f to give a reference to the "on track" comment from IMUC prior to their mediocre results -- which may rise from the ashes in time. At the time, I found IMUC's language potentially a little misleading (perhaps unintentionally or intentionally) and this proved to be accurate. (my suspicion arose when Larry Smith ( a very informed guy) gave a hint ahead of time that the IMUC results might not initially meet their lofty goals because of the trial design, and IMUC insiders started selling before trial results came in). Again with IMUC, there is a huge distinction from the specific context in which NWBO used the word "encouraged" (v. IMUC's "on track") for their trial. I won't go into all the context since I believe everyone here knows it.
Unrelated:
Ou, like you, I also found the reverse PFS-OS findings from Cylacel to IMUC interesting in their own right.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
