BioTechHedge - A "discussion" implies an openness to points of view and admits to other possibilities than the one you, yourself, are holding and allows that another point of view might have validity when it is backed by credible information. Belaboring a point is not a discussion. Insisting on a single point of view is not a discussion. A discussion brings additional information if your first attempts to convince another have not been persuasively effective.
"Why" implies an interest in the truth of things. With respect to Rida, this is certainly an important question. If there is no answer available that is not sheer conjecture, would you be satisfied? I think not. You seem to insist on your own conjecture that implies Rida might not succeed without tangible evidence. Another drugs difficulties is not evidence. You suggest as evidence statements that were optimistic about PIII, look 2. Those are not facts they were simply optimistic statements that do not have a bearing on the outcome of the study. The facts will come out when the trial is done. If you can't settle for the facts what will you settle for. To insist that optimistic statements have some import in this situation is a simply a false argument because it has no scientific content. If you want, you can simply say Rida Booo, Ariad Boo, Harvey Berger Booo and Don_Shimoda Booo. We will understand what you are saying; but don't try and dress that kind of commentary with the clothes of a feigned interest in "discussion " and a feigned intereste in the pursuit of truth and expect that we won't see through it.