I think that's a pragmatic approach but its ultimately all about...

I think that's a pragmatic approach but its ultimately all about votes.

If enough people are dissatisfied change can be effected.

Having said that the post initially is intended to seek discussion as to whether ppl feel that theres likley sufficient evidence available from trials as observed by management to indicate favourability of results. If so, a conclusion needs to be drawn as to the disclosure requirements.

I personally take the view that they would have sufficient insights of dramatic issues (ppl leaving trial, ppl being violently Ill, basically evidence of adverse effects etc) and under CD rules they would be obliged to report to market.

More subtle and debateable, but I also think if its obvious that the results are innocuous but 'dud' the outcome would need to be called out.

Additionally, if you proactively tell market you have visibility in trials process in quarterly youd think you would not have 'dud' results ie why call out your express knowledge of trials if you weren't obliged to and put yourself at risk?

So imo how good are they? The quarterly is prospective in nature, so I think thats supportive.

All in all I think we've got something robust.... but more transparency is required given the timrlines and whilst you
may understandably chose to vote with your feet, at some point I think we need to vote with our votes ... bcs as you suggest and as Im sure Lux might to cavalier behaviour is not du jure....ask woolies

You back on the toot toot?