RE:RE:RE:There hmmm goes with that wonky math again. Euphas? That was a trial that was an Italian trial in 2010.. and they enrolled 357 patients. Using that to point to the US FDA stopping Tigris early at 90 is without logic.
This post again shows your shill problem. Instead of seeing the 4 1/2 years as a real problem for this company and investors - you'd rather make hollow excuses, try and disguise the problem, and go back to spreading make believe early stoppage dreams- that even the CMO denied is a possibillity.
The 4 1/2 years is based on the pace for the last 8 months- because if I based it on the pace of last 3 years- you'd say it was unfair because of COVID..
So in your view we can't judge the pace of the trial by anything that has happened. A 3 year Mulligan- none of it counts or matters.
So we'll see the magical, new "real" pace when? This month? Can we believe the next update? Or is that one somehow unfair too?
The pace is the problem, the burn rate is the problem.
And the biggest problem is a management that can't fix one, and is not interested in fixing the other.
But I'm sure management is busy plotting their next ludicrous options windfall, and another new investor drive.