RE: Regarding unmet objectives/expectationsHowever, on further reflection I felt that ONC may have good grounds NOT to publically comment on why their objectives/expectations were not met
not only won't you allow yourself a criticial thought of onc management, it seems you'll spend countless hours thinking about what line of reasoning will fit to explain away any perceived shortcomings, excuse BT & MC, and turn them into corporate pioneers more clever than bill gates, henry ford, and thomas edison combined.
before you continue to pat them and yourself on the back for sleuthing out those hidden explanations that affirm onc's MASTER PLAN is on track and about to blow everyone away (that most of us somehow missed), step back and consider the background and history of these guys
1. MC a phd student who rode Lee's discovery and turned it into a full time career
2. BT - former president & CEO of synsorb, a failed developmental biotech that had 2 ph III fast-track drugs but bombed.
3. DB - accountant and "out of the box thinker" extraordinaire - his history immediately prior to joining onc was with two failed public companies - Cdn Airlines & SYNSORB. creative financing was obviously too bland for him, he needed the challenge of contemplating alternative applications for viral agents that were potentially oncolytic and found one at onc with the reovirus.
after 5 years though, i still don't understand why they have collectively failed to progress a treatment that is so highly acclaimed to be safe & amzaingly effective that it will evolutionize cancer treatment globally, further than they have.
at this rate, you'll still be making apologist posts 5 years from now proboscis, but if they still haven't started that US glio trial by then, i think your audience may have turned over a few times in the interim
at least you'll be able to recycle some of your older "plausible" explanations and save the time you spent coming up with the original ones
