Even if the data was not formally analyzed, Vical did enough estimation to make a very import decision to cancel A7 trials. Vical should have provided investors some information on that estimating and reasoning for the cancelation. Not doing so, draws unnecessary suspicion. So, why do it?
You are one of the more knowledgeable people on this board. Could you articulate specifics like for example choosing too high number of events, two delays (is it really possible that suddenly chemo arm lives that longer?), do you think there is the possibility that doctors out there actually gave A7 instead of chemo? I mean they knew that chemo can not extend life and the experiment was not blind to the doctors. Giving chemo or A7 is different. Do you remember specifics where in past conferences the CEO gave misleading forward looking information? etc etc.