I think there are different ways to consider a timeline. this one is an excellent example.Quote:"decision [was] pending in the next few weeks or months."
you need to consider what he said. what is it exactly that is pending in weeks or months?
if he had said "screening is pending in weeks or months", then we would clearly be looking at a likely 2026 start date.
if he had said "the protocol is fda and irb approved", then same.
or even if he had said something like "the approval process is wrapping up"
but all we have (i haven't revisited his comments, perhaps there's more) is "a decision is pending". we don;t know what that means or what remains after that decision. maybe its the IRB decision and everything else is done, so 2026. on the other hand maybe its the official buy-in from the institution and nothing else has been done (protocol submission, etc), so then 2027. i'm not suggesting that the official buy-in is where it stands, but technically we just don't know. i/m not comfortable anticipating that dosing will begin within a few months when i don't even know if a protocol has been prepared or what exactly remains to be be done prior to the start of screening.
I just don't have information that points to 2026, YET, and so i'm saying 2027. just to clarify, when i say 2027, my expectation is q1 or latest q2. and i would agree that q2 is perhaps being pessimistic, but biotech timelines slip. i don't mean cytodyn, i mean all of biotech, including cytodyn. its the norm, hence the pessimism. if another update provides more clarity, i'd happily change my assumption on the timeline.
1
