RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: good read page 607 mentions SCBaylor,
Yes I agree with you it wasn't a terrible comment; though because there was so little reference to SSS in the paper it would likely leave a neutral (and very likely negative) impression in the minds of readers so it was too bad the authors, with their due diligence, couldn't seem to say anything positive that would have balanced this paragraph on SSS.
My disappointment was perhaps coloured by my own recent negativity on SSS, based mostly on an utter lack of apparent progress by the company to address organizational problems, (where's the new CEO) and lack of evidence of progress in moving the trials forward...there just doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm or real interest in the office, just coasting along waiting for some other agency (eg. DOD) to do something that we might react to.
Hope I'm wrong. But one thing is certain, for me at least, since Dr. Moore left we seem to have lost our way and our spark. He maybe bore some fault for not monitoring the India trial closely but he certainly was a open and fairly frequent communicator to shareholders and I'm guessing pretty aggressively promoted SSS with all the important drug-development constituancies.
Regards,
M