Yeah. 3-6 months is far too tight a market on time to peer...

Yeah. 3-6 months is far too tight a market on time to peer reviewed publication by @39KP. Peer review can take many months longer in many cases. I've seen many publications well over a year after significant results. Its also of course dependent on submission timing.. We know how tardy these lot are, Why would submission be devoid of simiilar lack of oversight or habitual tardiness, despite their assurances?

Just the actual process of peer reviewing, once accepted, let alone admin and publishing itself (50 days on average?), is often 60-90 days and thats after sending to muliple academic reviewers of whom only a small fraction will be inclined with workloads, oiutside range of reveiew, or other reasoning to typically agree to review.

But to @39KP's point, the lack of publication doesn't mean we need to start looking behind the curtains quite yet.

Not a bad little article:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/11/08/guest-post-publishing-fast-and-slow-a-review-of-publishing-speed-in-the-last-decade/

Things have at least improved in the last decade on reveiew publication.

We've all seen the results. We know the...hurdle (?)...around dosing, otherwise we can be pretty confident of efficacy. This share price is in the toilet more for other reasons than questions over efficacy surely? Mainly PR's pumping of deals in the last four years that never arrived and capital concerns that accordingly and rightly loomed larger in light of that, in a world where the cheap cost of capital in the last 20 years has gone from all time lows back to highs in the space of 2 years.

(I am a buyer here, at the expense of other long-term holders who've rightly lost patience no doubt).