Ann: ArTiMist Appeal Reasons For Decision, page-67

Gee Doole - a bit patronising to say I don't understand what they're saying when I've barely even referred to it.

The control issue you mention is unrelated to my point - so no need for the explanation

My point is that they have, whether intentionally or inadvertently, endorsed the effectiveness of SUDA's oro-mucosal delivery technology. My point has nothing to do with their reasons for knocking it back - in fact my point hardly relates to Artimist at all.

Anyone is free to correct me but I don't think we've ever received such an endorsement, intended or otherwise, from such an independent and unrelated body.

This should be good news to anyone who has had niggling doubts about the technology itself and, at 0.3 of one cent for a share, I know that many have.