I don't think there is much of a debate . Until I hear a seasoned statistician give a sound argument that the HD trial was successful from an efficacy standpoint, it's a no brainier. Most people seem to agree since the market cap is $300M and not >$5B. It's a traders stock
A lot of people expected the HD trial to be a total failure.
Suggest that this misses the point - given the trial design almost the only way it could be a "failure" would be if it failed on safety.
PRAN is a good example of why companies run such non-informative ph ii's - because they can't easily fail and can be spun positive easily.
PS - I haven't spent any substantive time digging into all the clinical trial results in depth. I am only commenting on the general rigor of the trial protocol, rigor of the analysis and the PR.