>>>>Now, what was the reason, again, that snrs was permitted to operate on two eyes the same day
Because the procedure is Safe!
The reason, imho, for the rejection is one of two
things, or a bit of each. As Auric (who is NOT the
bad guy, as some of you presume) said on thread:
Message 10600716
He warned US, the longs on S.I., that it was NOT politically
feasable to get approved when the WSJ published how the
clinical people were Major shareholders. As the reports I
hear indicate the panal was looking for some way NOT to
approve, they latched onto old regression data.........OR/AND:
SNRS only had 18 months of data when the FDA wanted 24...this
one seems hard to beleive, imo, because I don't think they
would have had a total rejection, simply a request for more
data, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,
That leaves #1, where even though legally/techinally it may
not have been against the law for the clinical investigator's
to own Major, and I do mean Major chunks of stock, the panel
sent a message "LOUD & CLEAR" that they have raised the bar
for passage. Btw, who thinks it is mere coincedance the WSJ
came out with that report "the DAY BEFORE" the meeting?
I have some swamp land in Arizona I want to sell you.
Skane |
