I think you guys are way off course thinking that the second...

I think you guys are way off course thinking that the second trial was at fault.

The second trial was very professionally done, with everything the way a trial should be done at multiple sites, and would have shown at least several good results from at least a few of the boys if they existed.

The trial we should be looking at extremely hard is the first.

This terrible disease has had immense effort put into solving it, yet one trial shows good results and so you think that that small trial must be correct and no correspondence will be entered into.

RYNZN, you have challenged me on several occasions when I showed any doubt about this company claiming that I was trying to get the price down to buy more.

I always doubted the company and I knew in my water that it was going to put in a bad result.

There are several reasons why I stuck with it instead of selling but I do not intend to share here with you those reasons.

I wish to hell that I had never heard of this dog of a stock. but you trying to blame everyone else for your bad judgement just shows your inability to look at the problem subjectively and accept the results.

Having said that, it is time you and others became realistic regarding PER.

The question you should be asking is how come the first trial was so good?
This needs to be qualified before wasting money chasing reasons that are most likely false.

The first trial was outstanding and even very learned professionals were surprised by the results.

I am developing my own ideas but I will expand them before saying anything else.

Lockitt