So how could they have got it so wrong, with all their experts...

So how could they have got it so wrong, with all their experts and consultants. You picked it up. How did they explain it away to you? Was it because they thought it was sufficient under rule 8? Or was it never in the chase with any ruling? I recall your warnings, but really couldn't imagine they could get something so fundamental wrong. Like you say, that scientists want data, and our company was loaded with scientists. They should know.
We don't have the full information as to what gone on here and may never know, but bits and pieces try to explain the story.
I still believe that the EMA should have been able to say very early in the piece that the trial was fundamentally lacking. Maybe they did, or alluded to it, in their line of questions, we don't know yet.

The Australian government really wants a bio-tech industry. This mess is a real stab in the back to its development. Maybe they could be persuaded to assist in getting it over the line, as its success is very important to the future industry development. I see them waste so much money in ARC grants of dubious research claims. Maybe a loan to help finish the process may be possible? But that's probably just more dreaming.

Can you tell us a little more of the detail of you discussion Hvalfisken