Good Q's, enemem.
1)<<What I don't get is why Stoll, during the CC more or less said "we still haven't received anything in writing..", instead of "we're not going to receive anything in writing>>
I agree, I thought the same.
Was he anticipating a low probability of an FDA response, and just buying time, as Cor regrouped to develop new plans and priorities? I don't know.
2)<<then why would Stoll plan on submitting another new compound for the same radioactive indication?>>
Perhaps he has a modified IND with a smaller foot print or some guidance from the FDA that he would not want to share with competing interests. The ADHD indication needs to go forward but not as the leading edge of ampakine therapy.
Dr Stoll still has my benefit of doubt, but 2008 will tell the story. I don't like my role as an apologist, in this post. You made good points.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
