RE: Timenahalf - re manufacturingThis is what I know:
Subsequent to this date it seems to have been determined that Reolysin is better administered through direct infusion into the brain rather than through direct intracranial injection as took place in the Canadian trial and the use of an infusive administration was designed into the US trial protocol.
certainly a plausible explanation, but
1. i don't recall seeing any explanation provided by onc in any official release or presentation that the reason for the halt of the ph I glio trial was to switch from injection to direct infusion.
2. for someone to post something the company won't disclose to all publicly via news release raises the natural question as to who your source(s) are for this "knowledge" (you know, so us "hypocrites" can determine the veracity of the claim
if your source is BT & the company as your post suggests, it also calls into question BT's comments at the AGM that he would not tell anyone something unless he was prepared to tell everyone (ie., why wasn't this explanation offered at BT's recent AGM presentation?)
for a small company with limited resources that is trying to commercialize a potentially breakthrough cancer treatment to rely on anonymous stockhouse posters rather than an official public news release to disseminate explanations of changes to their trial designs, it takes away a lot of credibilty they may have had, if you catch my drift.
imo, that is one of the main reasons why this stock with all its seemingly limitless potential & promise, that you promote and defend continually like some fanatical religious zealot, is sitting at under $6US.