For not having much good to report, that's a better-written PR than what Charles usually dumped online, with grammatical errors and sometimes conflicting statements coming out of a lawyer like Charles.
What sounds bad is that they are not addressing Clone3 or Clone7, are they giving up on mABS completely, after having a 100% success in initial toxicology reports and 95% efficacy on early tests of Clone3? What happened to IPFImmune? the African Trials of ITV-1?
Still so much to answer for. Sounds bad overall, but a better attempt at putting out a PR in any case.
GLTA
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
