RE:Kswdelux….listen , then comment. More specific to my RANT post, and you have demonstrated this to exactly what I am frustrated with, and I agree with your comment.
"News releases are boiled down to fit into as small a message as possible."
But this is what I find frustrating and was ranting about, when an NR comes out with first line stating,
Clinical breast cancer data indicate pelareorep-induced changes in blood T cell populations may be a predictive biomarker
"may be a"
This is nothing new and suggest to new investors or investors that have not been around here as long as you and I, that ONC is still not sure if the bio marker is actually real or not, it just states "may be a". It sounds like the big Unknown ??? Investors fear the unknown!
But as more familiar investors, we have to go listen to CCs and Fireside Chats to go find and hear these types of more significant comments.
I have listened to most ONC's CCs and Fireside Chats over the past 20 years, that are generally only posted and public for a short pewriod of time, then are deleted and all investors are left with are the NRs that still state "may be a".
ONC does not even publicize the transcrpits any more from the CCs like they use to.
I have an issue with this. That informative information is lost. Gone, only left with "may be a" in the remaining NR.
I have been here long enough, spoke with ONC IR, read, and listened enough to know that these bio markers are solid, and also know that ONC is building all these new side trials more specifcilally based on these statistically significant bio markers and AWARE-1 data. This data is spread through past NRs, if you know what you are looking for and have the ablility to tie them together (which is really all I was ranting about and referencing, breaking down.)
So, the main focus of my rant was, (and I appologize if I was mis-leading), why couldn't ONC start out the NR with an informative educational statement like,
Aware-1 bio marker data exceeded expectations, with statistical significance.
Instead of "may be a", and leave all this doubt in Investors ?
Why are we still stating "may be a" when we know otherwise and are spending millions on new side trials that are based on that statisticly significant bio marker data?
Why are this types of positive moving forward statements only made in the CCs and Fireside Chats that get deleted later ?
Why isn't this type of comment of "statisticly significant" the for front statement in NRs?
I remember all kinds of comments from past CCs over the years that were significant comments, but from time to time looking back through the ONC IR pages, you cannot find those significant comments anywhere for reference, cause all the CCs and Fireside chats are deleted.
That info is gone.
And as per your comment about short NRs, this informative statement of "statistical significance" is even shorter than the first statement of the Nov 5th "may be a" NR, and would have stated something of significance that would have remained as an NR and not been lost/deleted in CCs or Fireside Chats.
I am just frustrated as to why we are still stating "may be a" in NRs?
It hasn't been "maybe" for years!
That was what my rant was about.