I respectfully take your point. My obviously erroneous assumption was that if difficult patients had undergone 3 years of best standard care without improvement, and are considerably improved with the application of the Vitrogro then that does seem the product does actually work. That's how the candy was sold, and I and many others bought it. I could not conceive that we could be sold something so illegitimate. As bad as some management aspects were, surely they could not have got this wrong. Sure they screwed up the classification aspect, but the notion the trial data validity was sugary water? not possible. Prof Keith Harding was waving the ok flag as well, or was he party to all this. Surely he would have known the trials were insufficient for what the company was proposing to do!
The case and situation being what it is, how do you suppose these groups of scientists and professional people could have got it so absolutely wrong. Could they have not known? You for one raised it with them.
They couldn't have been unaware of a possible catastrophic problem. "Risk Management". Yea sure.
One would have to consider the situation to be a fraud, hiding behind the term incompetence. Incompetence doesn't seem to cover it in the light of how you describe it.
There was a big red flag there before with the situation of the vitrogro based stem cell growth media that ended in retracted scientific papers, grant refunding and Zee Upton escaping by the skin of her teeth with her excuse of a heavy work load.
One of my main concerns now is that even or especially if the product has great merit, the company will be managed that it is sucked dry and allowed to fail. QUT still have the Patents (which were most probably paid for by the company) and can start off again with a clean sheet and form a new company to do it properly. They would have their percentages back again. Can this happen? . In light of the personal publicity it would attract I hope not. If it were being considered then I hope that a public airing of this scenario may make some think twice. But it is surely technically not breaking the law, if it is managed correctly. Its just clever business right! Just as it was clever business raising money on the premise of great trials and data, when all along they were insufficient. The defense is ignorance. All that is needed.
On second thought with the s/price the way it is a new investor is getting the company with the existing shareholders diluted to the value of the cash at hand almost. Put up 10 mil and you would have 50% of the company. If the product is good then this is just about an irresistible offer/opportunity.
That is why we need to know more information soon as to what is actually being proposed, and actually answer shareholders questions when they ask, as the new management style assured they would.
No I don't understand the full complexity of what has happened and what is currently happening. But I certainly have a lot of questions about how this has all come about.
One question is how the hell does the ex manager of a biotech company that has become an absolute disaster due to his management and direction either due to absolute incompetence and possibly worse, so quickly on his walking away from the train wreck, so quickly pop up as the manager of a health biotech consulting company ? Its like a bad joke, in very bad taste, but its real.
And the biotech industry wants investment in the new Cochlear or whatever possibility. That's the candy. What about the new TIS, etc? Horse sheet biscuits anyone?
If they want credibility then they had better wave the flag of accountability.
Expand
