Shareholders assumed the prior data was real. They were...

Shareholders assumed the prior data was real. They were reassured by current management it was in many ways creating a "low risk" clinical trial hence the very high hurdles they set themselves in structure of study . Subsequently that data due to study set up has no secondary data use as narrow participants due to screening and ultimately low participant numbers. Perhaps 1/2 of rejected / screened patients should have been in a 2nd study group to prove if it accelerates healing and all rejected patients could have had follow up to prove SOC sucess in excluded screened group. The study possibly eliminated the very subset ( or smaller group who never heal aged 60-70 size above XXcm2 etc) in which i may have shown change ? All eggs were in one basket with a very high hurdle ( clinical study design) because of management in confidence in previous study's.

Shareholders are now to believe that all prior data , invitro in lab new and old and at university etc was all an anomaly , placebo?
They haven't specified any change in SOC- new bandages, new washes, Dr giving antibiotics or other medication ,leaving bandages on longer or shorter duration , study only in winter not summer so participants less active, etc new diabetes treatments, new blood thinners, heart pills , sprays , initial sterilisation , booster vitamins, exercise, asprin use, changes in smoking reduction - gum , diet, specialisation of nurses etc or any other possible factors - I don't know the reality is of how the standard or care has changed specific to actual ulcers but there has been massive changes in treatment of other " disease" / afflictions /. comorbidity the people in trial were likely to have .

Assuming FTT product ever worked and If it is not the specific SOC for ulcers that has possibly affected trial was it a factor of general medicine for SOC for other likely comorbidity factors that has affected data.D
Did FTT confirm those changes in SOC for comorbities and do invitro on changes and study other trials and ever report to shareholders? What about as trial was ongoing did they discover any? Were FTT monitoring changes in comorbidity SOC? If so it seems odd they didn't add it the the " dog ate my homework" trial failed follow up notice.

It is a really obvious data point to compare old and new data and prove it is change in SOC, trial factors, selection criteria if FTT did do data on all the other changes in SOC ( physical and chemical) for typical comorbidity that are associated with ulcers. Drug and treatment interaction , side affects ( sometimes positive) and off label use of medicine along with so much over the counter drug usage and traditional medicine it is hard in studies with small numbers. Result - no statistical subgroup achieved any benefit ? FTT down the crapper

( sorry for ramble impossible on road to edit or review ATM)