"Pfeifer said he thought this a political decision not scientific one. That is also what I think."
There was a time where modern man (of the time) believed the earth was flat - they 'knew' it was flat - there's been a revival in recent times as well. Have either of you entertained being wrong on these matters that you have had zero active involvement with? I'm betting, no. Evidence - who needs it. Going with your gut is sometimes the best thing.
"Now I think its not whether the FDA under Marks and Verdun have saved face for me - its about whether or not weak politic types have sold out their souls and their duty if I could put it that way."
Your desire to be correct without absolutely any involvement will not abate.
"Please understand I am not asserting that I know for sure that Marks and Verdun did the wrong thing (on the science evaluation - not dealing with the potency assay and confounding in the GVHD001 trial transparently (perhaps they've addressed it behind the scences) because they are weak - but I am saying that that is a working hypotheis of mine - that is I'm thinking itspossibleVerdun and Marks failed in their duty because they are weak characters that need the approval of others and want to be a part of something big even if the something big isn't ready."
Yet, you feel you have enough of an understanding to damn their souls to hell. Very measured and balanced opinion from a self proclaimed position of ignorance.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)