I think the concern/comment is that in the past, C

I think the concern/comment is that in the past, Cytodyn has released data from trials and the SP reacts negatively with good data news from a trial. The theory that Cyodyn is not just releasing a PR with the data from the NASH trial and waiting for a peer-reviewed article to bee released is to try and prevent the SP going down on good news. If the data is presented in a peer reviewed article, the news comes packaged in a highly regarded third party wrapper.

Also, Cytodyn has had less than stellar trial data released in such a way to suggest Leronlimab did not work as well, however usually it is analyzed and the problem is the trial did not have the right protocol or the right enrollment. Trial reports need to reflect the effectiveness of leronlimab as much as possible and not require the world look past a flawed trial. This is more difficult because you don't know what the trial will reveal. Long haulers is a perfect example - the trial showed a whole lot more about the condition and what is needed to run a good trial. If the CD12 trial had been presented as exploration instead of a trial that will lead to an EUA, We would be in a very different situation. Instead of an FDA trash letter, we might have an FDA that is guiding with great motivation an drug that shows great promise.

Cytodyn has had a history of very positive news leading to a lower SP, Anything they do differently is worth it to not waste any positive news on lousy packaging. Math has nothing to do with it, because if it did good trial news would result in higher, not lower SP.