OK, things are progressing well but the the comment I dislike is...

OK, things are progressing well but the the comment I dislike is “R327 is effective against all strains tested at MICs”.

What does that statement mean. If there is an MIC for an organism it must be effective against that organism otherwise it wouldn’t have an MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration).

It is a quote (probably a partial quote) from someone else but anyone writing this update should know that what should have been quoted here in such an update was simply that “R327 is effective against all strains tested”.

It is an illustration of the scientific vacuum that all too often characterises the company’s scientific statements and I believe is symptomatic of the reasons why the company does not share the image in the market enjoyed by so many other pharma-biotechs.

Someone doesn’t actually seem to understand what they are actually saying.

Not a good look in a company claiming to be at the cutting edge of their area of specialisation (which, effectively, is generating MICs).

OK. Overly pedantic perhaps, but these documents are read by Big Pharma scientists, and others, who look to forming a view of how accurately generated are the scientific results that are reported. A good indication of the accuracy of the results is the accurately with which those results are communicated.

poorinvestor