CCD - I have to agree with Bear on this one. I was at the AGM so heard his statement first hand and I don't feel there has been any contradiction. Maybe a little guarded language that was necessary. He said that some felt they should hold all of the data until March and he scoffed at that. That made sense as we needed some good news after top line failure. Also, the conferences back then were the correct places to release much of the data. He might have compromised at the time and agreed to hold the renal data until March when it was a more related conference or he might have even been in favor with that himself. 

He did state back in December that, "there were no more embargoes" and there probably was not at that time. A new embargo might have been placed when they went after this conference. If they were going to try for this one, they might have stayed mum at that time even though they didn't have to because saying or releasing too much could have made them not very attractive for this conference and endangered their chances of getting the position they just achieved. I don't think their was any contradiction and probably was just guarding the information so they could get this position. The conference doesn't want old news presented.