|"Ignore obvious stock manipulation, ignore obvious misleading information by analysts, ignore that we have absolutely no evidence that IMMU didn't meet FDA standards (other than the FDA said so)"|
I don't see "obvious" anything. Just a set of facts that leads you to that speculative conclusion. Also, the actual fact that the FDA issued a CRL means they did not meet FDA standards. If you think those standards are inappropriate and the company should have been given a pass anyway, that's your opinion, but not a fact of any sort, and without any evidentiary basis.
In the history of the FDA, they have gotten into trouble many times for approving drugs that should not have been approved, but they have never been in trouble for not approving a drug which should have been. That is the risk benefit calculation that FDA officials make.