» » I think there will be good results from this treatment.
»
» Excuse me, but is there something out there where you could NOT see good
» results from this treatment?
»
» You’re one of these guys who can even see good results when any other guys
» apply butter onto their bald heads.
Are the results public yet? No. So what are you talking about? You make it sound like the results have been released and the results are bad, but the results aren’t released yet so what the phuk are you talking sh!t for?
I’ve given an opinion. I think the results will be between good and very good. That is my opinion. I think that the company’s statement was just to cover its’ arse because they have more trials to go through and nobody knows how future trials will end up. I think this trial likely went pretty good because I believe in the concept of what they are trying to do. For legal reasons they had to say what they said. I also think that there is the chance that they are concerned that they can not protect their technology for various reasons so the company might end up toast so they decided they better state that possibility for legal reasons. They have to worry about the potential for their technology being pirated and they have to worry that past researchers that utilized the same or similar technology could pop out of the woodwork screaming that the technology belongs to them instead of replicel.
These guys are basically putting new cells and growth factors into the skin and I think that will prove beneficial so of course I anticipate good news coming.
You disagree with me and that is your right. But then why doesn’t statement just flat out say that the technology does not work and leave it at that? Why does the statement even talk about “if” the technology does work investors might still lose because the company might not be able to protect the technology from competitors? Why does the statement even bring up that issue if the technology does not work? It seems to me that if the technology does not work then that trumps everything else so why do their statement even mention other reasons why the company might fail besides the efficacy of the technology?
