Very clear, @ddwn. But it won't convince that one, he will...

Very clear, @ddwn. But it won't convince that one, he will continue to interpret information in the worst possible light and go on and on and on ad infinitum with his (un)educated guesses.

Have never seen someone so persistently try to build a scientific case out of the slightest slivers of data -- but somehow ONLY ever come up with the NEGATIVE side of thing.

Sheesh, dude, we get it - the assays might not be enough, an additional trial may be ordered, the FDA might not accept MSB's proposed measures for potency. NO CRAP! We've been waiting for over two years now for those answers.

MSB has been deliberately VERY tight-lipped about their precise approach to the issues in the CRL, so the ONLY thing we can do to get a definitive answer is unfortunately to wait for them to resubmit...and then finally see if the FDA agrees with them.

Anything else is simply a SWAG, as we used to say in the Army: "Scientific Wild-A*s Guess."

That dude at least has a thin patina of thoughtfulness so isn't an instant "Ignore"...but you are right - his negative view of MSB invariably clouds his "analysis."

SO. FREAKING. BORING.