Fair dinkum. Here we go again with the same bunch of malcontent SH hinting at skullduggery or malfeasance by the company.
What a load of rot.
This is what the dates on the journal article mean (and, yes, I am well accustomed to reading journal articles in my professional roles):
Received: 2 December 2022 - This is the date the study authors submitted the article to the Cancer Medicine journal (one of Wiley's stable of journals). A couple of notes here. First the lead authors for the article are A/Prof Walter 'Doug' Fairlie and Erinna Lee from ONJCRI, not anyone from PharmAust. How do we know? Read the attributions:
Did the other authors see the article / contribute to it? Probably - which brings me to the next important point to note.
This journal is peer reviewed, which means that once an article is received by the publisher, it undergoes a rigorous process of scrutiny and review by experts in the field to ensure that the science stacks up and that the quality of the article is acceptable to the publisher.
Of course, this process takes some time and, during the review period, it would be exceptionally unwise to make the "results" public (for example, in an ASX announcement) lest the reviewers take issue with the study, discover a flaw in the methodology, or identify some aspect of it that renders the results unusable or questionable. This is precisely why the peer review process exists.
This brings us to the next date:
Revised: Revised 12 April 2023. Have a guess what? The peer review process identified some aspect of the paper that required revision. Totally normal and in no way a slight on the report, but the article did change and required revision prior to publication. Now, this could be anything at all - we'll never know. But, in the event that the revisions were required to correct a statistical error or similar, isn't it lucky that the company didn't unilaterally push news to the market that proved to be inaccurate or later required correction? Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the ASX would allow such an announcement ahead of the peer review process and subsequent publication of the article.
This is followed in short order by:
Accepted: 20 April 2023 - This is when the article, having been amended and re-submitted to the journal, was deemed to have met the standard for publication. But, it was only on 6 May 2023 that the article was made public by Wiley and the company was then free to report the results to the market.
It's been noted in this thread that not everyone knows how to read a journal article - I'd agree with that proposition, but add to it that those relying on the date sequenced on the article header to support their ongoing campaign of nonsensical mudslinging aimed at destabilising the current BoD (or should that be white anting the company just as we approach the most important time in its history?) have badly overestimated their own abilities to interpret basic bibliographical information.
THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE BUT MORE OF THE SAME NONSENSE FROM THE GROUP OF SH I HAVE CALLED OUT PREVIOUSLY.
If you only realised how ridiculous the ongoing innuendo and riddle-talking looks to anyone with an ounce of commonsense.
And now we learn that, while holding these grave concerns for the governance of the company and the capacity of the BoD to get the job done, some of you are buying more shares. Cognitive dissonance, or just being dishonest?
Just incredible.
Densy
(20min delay)