Oh my ... oh my ... oh my
I was very reluctant use my second post on this today - too much worth commenting on in the Quarterly released today. By the way - has anyone looked at the 'cash burn' and where the cash is being used? More on that later.
Anyway, I just couldn't, in all good conscience, let this announcement pass without comment.
And this is in the first paragraph.
"(
Although the company went into a trading halt pending the release of this announcement, due to the recompliance currently underway as announced earlier, this announcement will not lift the suspension of the company’s securities)."
So ... the Executive Chairperson of (
who signed the document) of QBL, imagines and feels it necessary to explain this most obvious of facts to shareholders? Ok ..... then!
Firstly and most importantly, has this "
ground breaking discovery" been
peer reviewed yet?
Has this research / study been published in any recognised
scientific or medical journals?
If not, then I am not sure whether it is reasonable or, indeed, accurate to note it as a, "
ground breaking discovery"?
Peer review is one of the most basic protocols used in validating medical research - if indeed this "
ground breaking discovery" can be labelled as medical research. I am also thinking of things like using 'double blinds' - you know - normal scientific methodology.
Perhaps they did? If you have made a,"
ground breaking discovery", why would you include this sentence? "...
trials on mice are immediately commencing this week." Is the research incomplete? Where is the "
ground breaking discovery" exactly?
And getting approval to trial on humans is a very, very complex matter in most industrialised countries. It is a very, very complex matter - just ask some of the big pharmaceuticals!
In all fairness - it is reasonable for QBL to report this detail if they have had some hand in it. However, I think the words and phrases chosen should be far more measured and precise particularly when referring to, "ground breaking discovery" in the context of medicines and health issues (auto immune deficiencies and multiple sclerosis MS etc.).
Perhaps, this detail from the
World Health Organisation might be of some assistance for those wanting to understand the accpeted parameters that might be expected to surround the content of this latest 'announcement'.
http://www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/format_rp/en/
Is QBL spending shareholder funds on supporting this "research"? If so, how much of those shareholders funds will find its way into this "
research"?
Apologies about the bold type - it is not normally my style. I think that the issue here is of great import and we all should tread warily around claims made when talking about auto immune deficiencies and multiple sclerosis MS etc.
They are very serious issues and matter a great deal to a great many people.
