Apologists, page-7

At the risk of sounding like "an apologist" (is that as bad as a downramper?) I make 4 points;

1. the dates supplied are indicative timelines not deadlines (this point has been made many times in these MSB threads), but incorrectly characterising these as deadlines, can create a false sense of urgency and make MSB seem unreliable, when they are nothing of the kind;

2. biotechs frequently exceed indicative timeframes for valid reasons, because the sector is highly technical and often involves complexities which are either not reasonably predictable, or occur beyond the control of the biotech.  The degree of precision involved in a deadline does not apply. This is well understood within the industry and has been acknowledged in HC many times.

3. the FDA process does not need separate referencing  to explain point 2, most analysts and people familiar with biotechs understand this is not within the control of the biotech. Always worth reiterating for the benefit of those who aren't familiar, I guess.

4. surely we're all tough enough to withstand our arguments being challenged? However, it is always good to be civil about those with whom we disagree. This cuts both ways, surely?