We have the letter acknowledging their application from July 1, which is not saying the application was as of that date, but neither here nor there because it is irrelevant to getting approved locally, as I have shown previously. But we also have the scholars and researchers using the new generic name in an abstract at a top scientific conference now. They are not making that up, and you have the CSO as an author of the abstract as well.
Clearly they have an approval. Theorizing that they must not have one because of the past letter from July, is pure speculation and clearly the speculation is off base.
The false speculation then gets stretched to, they can’t do an application because they did not apply long ago enough, which has been shown to be false, and then the false argument that they must be incompetent because if they don’t have it yet (but they clearly do), then they should have applied earlier so they’d have it now and could do their application. It’s a whole ongoing series of false assumptions made contrary to multiple clear indications of it’s absolute falseness. Keeping people on the board discussing noise rather than real excitement about the abstract.
That is a pure distraction and noise.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
