RE:RE:RE:SoonDreimer200 wrote And would that explanation not be more considerate than an enigmatic “soon?”
Hi Dreimer200, I would really like to agree with you however according to security commission rules they can't give any individual or group any information or even give reasons to indicate a positive or negative response that hasn't already been released to the public. So we revert back to soon.
Since we are now playing detective perhaps we can eliminate patient results since that could be assumed to be close to perfect from previous results of continued CR in past patients achieving the next end results. So my vote sides with ScienceFirst that there is a negotiation on the go which could be with HC, FDA or a partnership involving 1 or more companies. Just playing detective, thoughts?