What’s with the editing? You can read, right? Your comprehension isn’t suffering? So why has it become verboten to state a fact? ICX’s hm failed. The release said so - why can’t we?
» You can read, right? Your comprehension isn’t
» suffering? So why has it become verboten to state a fact? ICX’s hm
» failed. The release said so - why can’t we?
It is NOT a fact that the project failed. You simply assume that is the case based on your interpretation of the press release. It is very common in the biotech/phara industry for smaller firms to partner with larger companies for large scale trials. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won’t. At this point, nobody knows. But nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE did they mention in the press release that the project failed. So why do you have to make unsubstantiated remarks that it failed? This is purely YOUR speculations.
HairSite
» What’s with the editing? You can read, right? Your comprehension isn’t
» suffering? So why has it become verboten to state a fact? ICX’s hm
» failed. The release said so - why can’t we?
I completely understand why Hairsite is doing this. Its because only 2 days after ICX made their announcement the subject is getting extremely monotonous.
Every one keeps repeating the same things over and over again.
ICX results can be interpreted a number of different ways and everyone is so sure their interpretation is the correct one.
The fact of the matter is we wont know who is correct unless ICX explain further.