Good arguments here to a point. A trial fails dismally and a whole platform technology is shut down.
Perhaps the WHY needs explanation.
Of course platform technologies can fail. We must accept this.
But we have not been given adequate reasoning as to why something so promising reverted to something totally useless, and why other different applications, such as eye wound care would necessarily suffer the same fate. After all the eye business had been through pre clinical success, or so we were told.
Was there ever anything behind the scaffold science?
We simply dunno. Was it incompetence or worse or was it a reasonable failure of scientific investigation.
Perhaps it is the time to involve the legal eagles.
