Originally posted by justaguess
....i totally agree Werble, it looks like the requisitioners haven’t managed PVD well at all, whereas FTT produced such a good, well designed trial that it showed the technology to be not much more effective than the standard care (the trial was sensitive to small changes of inflection). It’s different to significant company funds allegedly going into into directors fees and expenses instead of actual company business (as outlined in FTTs recent Shareholder statement).
It will be a devastating blow to FTTs shareholders if the requisitioners were allowed to succeed.
justaguess
"
whereas FTT produced such a good, well designed trial that it showed the technology to be not much more effective than the standard care"
Good on ya FTT, you produced such a
good, well-designed trial...who really cares that the product the company has been "developing", "researching" and patenting over 10 years was found to be no better than a bandage. What we really wanted was a good, well-designed trial. I am so ecstatic that we had such a brilliantly designed trial. I really dont understand these shareholders who complain they lost their money - dont they understand it was all in the service of a producing a good, well-designed trial?
Just because the FTT team lost every game they played is totally beside the point - shareholders should realise that the team had the shiniest shoes and best designed football jerseys in the competition. Makes me proud.
