The bocx stated: "Do you really believe that the amendment would constitute malpractice? "
I did not say nor do I think anything of the sort. Your post makes no sense because you do not read the posts on this board before you respond. Opportunity stated that lawyers would sue for malpractice if RECAF was not used for screening. My response to his ridiculous statement was for him to get a lawyer to sue Abbott for for not proceeding with RECAF in the first place and denying him the screening test he thinks he should have. It makes just about as much sense as what he suggested.
This statement describes Abbott's position on RECAF to a tee. Has anyone ever heard of or could cite an example where a company executed an agreement such as this and then continued to develop the product? The truth is that Abbott has not paid the feasibility milestone as of the latest filing and probably will never pay it. Any reasonable investor would read the following statement and conclude that Abbott was finished with RECAF. The statement is extremely clear.
"Abbott has no further obligations to perform research and development with respect to the RECAF technology as well as the obligation to pay annual minimum royalties."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
