KK2 - That's simple. He talks about the clinical data as if it was all cut and dried, that ABL does this and does that, when anyone with a scientific background can see immediately that he's overstating the case. Why? Because of things like small sample sizes, few events, lack of evidence that post hoc subgroups were well matched for relevant variables. These are important issues and he glosses over them. All the clinical  results to date provide good reason to be excited, but the evidence is not yet quite good enough. That's why we have breakthrough therapy status, which is great, but not a drug on the market. I believe that eventually it will be, and probably for several indications. But we're not there yet. He talks as if we are there. And when he does that to anyone who understands clinical trials it damages his credibility. He comes across as a marketing man, instead of a science savvy biotech CEO.  And imo that damages the company's image. I believe the share value would immediately increase if he made way for someone who is already highly regarded with a past record of achievement in the industry. Even before that person has set foot in his office. The news of his/her appointment would be enough.