Where went wrong?, page-30

The Harding trial is where the wrongs have germinated from.

From memory all the patients had no response from standard care for 3 years(?) and were old. There was then a high/strong response.
Were these the equal to Magnolis 3 type or Magnolis 2 type patients. No response for 3 years in hard to heal patients and then to heal is a big move.

So you do not go from that to no effect as with our last trial. 
So where is the reason for the discrepancy?

1. Harding Trial  was the hardest Mag 3 group?? (3 years non improvement prior) and perhaps our groups in this trial should have also been Mag 3???.
Or the results of the Harding Trial were a fraud, or it was fraud the group in the Harding trial were unresponsive for 3 years. Because it was a pretty big claim. There was no control(mistake) but for me the fact that the patients had been unresponsive for 3 years was convincing of its effectiveness.

I always assumed that the new management (FTT) would have fully scrutinized this trial result. If it looked honest then how is it possible to go from startling results to zero. That is too much of a stretch. 

I would like to see this investigated, because for me it is the basis of why I stayed and re-invested.

There is the possibility the last trial may have been buggered up in some way, material manufacture?? I don't know.

But for me the Harding Trial is the key to the truth. I am surprisingly at ease about my total substantial loss. I just want the truth, and if  there has been fraud (which I honestly expect) then there should be some accounting on that. There has always been a strong stench with the earlier management, and this new management may have been conned by the Harding results as well.

I for one would like to see an investigation done by an expert outside the company on that trial, using the funds still available to do it.