Marshall,
It appears the next price movement will likely be as a result of the criteria set by the FDA for the next study. Would you or anyone care to speculate on what the criteria will be; i.e., number of patients(likely more or less than the original study?), time duration, endpoints, etc. Marshall, why didn't ATIS build into the original study a mechanism that will allow the study to evaluate crossover patients using tissue that was not within the, as the FDA puts it, narrow MTT levels? As it appears to me, ATIS didn't know if it made any difference what MTT levels were used. I understand that we are dealing with a new field of science, but if it was truly just an oversight, then the study engineers should have revealed this to the public, maintaining the integrity of the product. However, choosing the path that they did, I think may have resulted in a worse outcome. I for one still believe in the technology; but in order to do so, I must also suspect that the team leaders that designed the initial study could have done better, and the findings could have been more accurately reported. I understand that ATIS likely realizes this and was just trying to get the product through. However, since Gail Naughton came from the FDA I would think ATIS would have better instincts. I know that you like the team at ATIS and I do not dare to question any of their integrity; however, I feel that mistakes have been made in the first study and with the recent manufacturing inspection. What do you think? As for myself, I've returned to accumulating more shares. As always your opinion is always appreciated.
Regards,
Bruce Long |
