Ok. I am happy to revise my earlier reply to:
THE suggestion that the researchers at OHSU were simply incapable to properly carry out the animal experiments that they had been contracted to conduct is highly doubtful....
It looks like we disagree on this particular issue. The public comments made by the spokesperson of OHSU, which are clearly diametrically opposite to some of the claims made by InVivo in this matter, are IMO simply more believable.
The university had nothing to gain by stopping the experiments early and against InVivo’s wishes (as claimed by InVivo) while InVivo stood to lose a lot (possibly even its existence) if the experiments did not turn out like they were expecting based on their earlier pre-clinical primate work that had been performed at a biomedical facility in the West Indies.
As part of the initial vetting process to be able to conduct the research at OHSU, InVivo’s monkey study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and the university was bound by federal mandates (e.g., the Animal Welfare Act) to follow established guidelines regarding the treatment of the animals used in their trial.
When the trial did not go as smooth as anticipated, it appears that InVivo first tried to renegotiate their research contract with OHSU and to change the study design in light of the unanticipated complications. However, when the university asked for more funding money, InVivo quickly decided to skip town altogether and went back to their original pre-clinical testing site in St Kitts.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
