We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I have well over 30 years of experience in advanced, high technology areas, many of those as a senior executive in companies developing cutting edge products. I've devised marketing and engineering plans for multiple products with multi-year development cycles and understand the risks and limitations in development.
GALT, however, is not a research organization, it is a drug development company. When you have limited resources (in their case, cash) it is incumbent to utilize those resources in such a way to maximize the impact. Additionally, as a public company, Traber et al have a fiduciary responsibility to enhance shareholder value. Little of what they have done in the past 2+ years, beginning with the botched release of the Phase 1 Cohort 2 data, has had even a remote link to that responsibility.
As for the latest poster regarding the non-invasive techniques, it is pure science that should be conducted by researchers and instrument makers, not a drug development company as it does absolutely nothing to enhance either the development of their lead drug or shareholder value. It has nothing to do with the CX trial as the end point for that trial is well defined through measurement by other means.
I've been a GALT shareholder since 2009 and the only reason I continue to hold any shares is that there is still a chance that the CX trial will be successful, not because I believe in the management team (that horse left the barn for the final time when they released the FX trial data and it was clear that the trial had been designed with little chance of success).
