RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:January 9th warrants@N0taP00p, As we discussed before the disclaimer (excuse) stuck in the last PR about analysis staff "pending availability" told me what I needed to know. I agree it's better for them to under-promise and over-deliver instead of the opposite. But, if things were about to happen why wouldn't they already know with certainty about staff availability? The wording is fairly clear to me:
I don't see this as cynical, but just logical interpretation (for expectations). Sequence of events:
1) 450 assessments for 25 patients (subject to CSS availability)
1.5) The assessments are expected to be completed in 4Q 2022 (subject to staff availability)
2) Company then compiles a clinical data report, and nobody knows how long that will take because we don't know if it's mostly complete & they simply have to plug in the remaining outstanding data or if they won't start the report until after all the assements are completed. We don't know it b/c they haven't told us.
So, we have a 4Q 2022 milestone that they HOPE occurs (pending staff availability) and then a clinical data report has to be authored & submitted to FDA. To me, that means the report will occur in 1Q at some point (hopefully). Anyway, the paragraph is worded slightly ambiguously IMO and it could also mean that they expected the actual clinical data report creation in 4Q 2022. I realize that's the other way to interpret this. But again IMO I've learned over the years that when a microcap is ambiguous, it's more common that the conservative interpretation ends up being the correct one (at best). So we'll see. An upside surprise would be excellent (over-delivering).
. The Company will compile a clinical data report for submission to the FDA in support of the grant of a BTD approval after completion of the 450 assessments for 25 patients, expected in 4Q2022, subject to the CSS’s availability to complete all required assessments and biostatistical review and analysis N0taP00p wrote: I may be one of the few voices here who don't like these warrant extensions. As opposed to being shareholder friendly, it could also be an indicator of potential delays and a lack of confidence in their own projected timelines. The tendency to ascribe only positive reasons for anything that smells fishy was a regular feature in my other Canadian investment that tanked. Every delay was met with a hopeful cheer and a litany of reasons why it could be a good thing. Each exec hired -or leaving - was explained away as decisions made by wise men and women who knew what they were doing. FDA submission was always around the corner, till it was not. Self-styled message board gurus churned out endless "data" and history lessons to convince everyone. Always used to wonder why medical devices analysts never covered that company. So excuse me for being a show-me skeptic. I hold quite a bit of shares and I believe in the technology and the possibilities pointed out by many. My fear is always poor execution and decisions that either cause constant delays or dilute share price. And the massive hole in awareness of this company. I hope the next announcement is not another round of selling shares and warrants to raise money. I want to see the clinical data submission as an NR. Was supposed to happen in Q4.