Tough question indeed.
On the one hand we have an 80 something year old CEO who has zero experience in the medical field of this nature trying to get a device approved and on the other hand we have "shareholders" with their excuses and goalpost moving.
At the end of the day though, if this "revolutionary" gel was just that it would have been developed a long time ago. It's as simple as that.
It was created in 1998. Sat dormant for 13 years then "licensed" to a worthless OTC shell in 2012. That same year Fisher claimed they were testing rabbits. Yet, only publishes the paper on the study in 2021 when the FDA requested it. Then when they denied that research paper and asked for a SECOND study it wasn't completed in its entirety.
Are people saying Fisher couldn't "license" this medical device to no other large biotech or pharmaceutical with extensive funds and expertise if it was such a "promising" gel? It could only be licensed to an OTC ticker with no funds, expertise, or real management?
Sure, that doesn't sound too off!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
