Hi @Odds&EvensI agree with you, but I think the issue may boil...

Hi @Odds&Evens

I agree with you, but I think the issue may boil down to an assessment of when trial "information" on trial outcomes - even preliminary data - is sufficiently verified to be regarded as reliable enough to release.

The ASX has "Code of Best Practice for Reporting by Life Science Company." It does not replace the normal reporting rule but it is intended to give better context and guidance for reporting when it comes to life sciences.

On page 10 it states:

"The Code recognises the importance of peer review in the validation process and acknowledges that in some circumstances disclosure of results before peer review (through publication in a medical journal, presentation at a scientific meeting or otherwise) may be premature."

It does go on to say that "Delay in disclosure raises particular Listing Rule issues, and companies need to be sure that the circumstances of any delay come within the terms of the exception to Listing Rule 3.1 contained in Listing Rule 3.1A."

https://www.asx.com.au/documents/research/Code_of_Best_Practice_for_Reporting_by_Life_Science_Companies.pdf

I think a Life Sciences company can reasonably argue that trial data is not verified until there has been external peer review. This is presumably why the recent Announcement on the Checkvacc imaging was held off until the Conference at which it was presented.

In the end, until we see data, this all comes down to trust and patience, and of course we all have differing levels of both. Some here may have too little. I may have too much. We will know the truth eventually...

Cheers

Dave