You draw a rather long bow.
You have conflated his wound care expertise and knowing does it work to heal wounds
with
was the test sufficient to meet some other bodies legal requirements. Its true he would have much more knowledge of the latter than you or me through experience, but that is unrelated to his skills expertise and credibility as an eminent wound care specialist.
There is also the issue of having expertise not only in what the requirements were at the time but were going to be when the application was lodged. Back in that window of time was about when large problem with replacement hip devices blew up and the ramifications of that fell out.
The test was, Flawed for the purpose it was eventually put to. Questioning whether or not it did do what it did do well is different matter. I was as, I read the design always aware of the patient selection mechanisms, and that it was not a double blinded randomised trial, and was aware that it had been done by man with actual expertise in the field.
I never ever recall any assurance made by him that it was fit for the purpose you now critcize his expertise over.
I find no credible or reasonable basis for you questioning his expertise in his own field. The involvement of his expertise means what it always did, and regulatory risks are still in existence. Not only have we tripped on those once but they are still there.
The evidence that it works is the same as it always was. It is not rigorous enough for pharma application in the US.
As stated one of the bigger risks I see to current investors is that other people will talk the stock down and make it hard to get good financing deal and go forwards.
TIS Price at posting:
4.7¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
