Thanks for posting relevant parts of the filing.
Post# of 154678
(Total Views: 383)
Posted On: 11/03/2022 2:36:46 PM
Re: craigakess #130060
Thanks for posting relevant parts of the filing.
Sp, what about this part of it?
but you say "there are always 2 sides to every story."
Yes. Amarex can say, "We didn't file the information correctly because a mere year was not enough to figure out how to put the correct information in the correct boxes. The FDA gave us a point-by-point guidance on how to do it but we needed a lot more time to move data from one box to another.
Plus we didn't have the data we needed because we didn't keep track of dates correctly for all patients, and then we didn't do the analysis of the data that needed to be done.
See? It wasn't our fault ! ! !"
What possible defense do they have for the 2nd submission that did not follow the FDA's guidance?
It's the very definition of gross negligence, and the NSF CEO saying that he would investigate it and then not responding to CYDY also shows that NSF had direct control. That, along with appointing 2 of their senior executives to additional senior positions at Amarex.
As far as the statement you made in your other post
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support that statement. The company has never stated that. You backpedaled and said that it was your conclusion based on looking at their resumés. YOUR CONCLUSION is NOT EVIDENCE. It's just your conclusion.
Presenting opinions as statements of fact that everyone supposedly already knows ("Remember...." ) is deceptive at best,
Sp, what about this part of it?
Quote:
neither party will be
prohibited from proceeding in a court to seek injunctive relief or other equitable remedies pending arbitration.
but you say "there are always 2 sides to every story."
Yes. Amarex can say, "We didn't file the information correctly because a mere year was not enough to figure out how to put the correct information in the correct boxes. The FDA gave us a point-by-point guidance on how to do it but we needed a lot more time to move data from one box to another.
Plus we didn't have the data we needed because we didn't keep track of dates correctly for all patients, and then we didn't do the analysis of the data that needed to be done.
See? It wasn't our fault ! ! !"
What possible defense do they have for the 2nd submission that did not follow the FDA's guidance?
It's the very definition of gross negligence, and the NSF CEO saying that he would investigate it and then not responding to CYDY also shows that NSF had direct control. That, along with appointing 2 of their senior executives to additional senior positions at Amarex.
As far as the statement you made in your other post
Quote:
Remember, this management team was built to sell the company, not advance trials.
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=649...z7jbW9nnZa
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support that statement. The company has never stated that. You backpedaled and said that it was your conclusion based on looking at their resumés. YOUR CONCLUSION is NOT EVIDENCE. It's just your conclusion.
Presenting opinions as statements of fact that everyone supposedly already knows ("Remember...." ) is deceptive at best,
(5)
(0)