I'm not "implying" anything- just stating facts and an opinion, which I'm 100% allowable and a legit thing to do.
Citing the .gov own web site, the statement "website is used for recruitment and general information purposes. " is 100% incorrect.
Previous post, posted the links to .gov site- it involves FDA LAW among other things when human subjects are involved, it involves being published in medical journals, it involves "ethics" (the sites own wording) and a whole host of other things. It does not, according to the site involve "being used for recruitment" as one of its primary or main purposes.
That's using the .gov site and its own info- which I trust a whole lot more than a potential private email from the CEO of a public traded company- when no one else appears to have been given the same, "material", pretty important info in many people's opinion. To be registered and listed on that site or not, is not a "trivial" matter for a major phase II/III trial seeking FDA approval- and that's not my opinion, that's based on what the .gov site ITSELF says and claims. Read the site and the FAQ and other info on it such as, "Why should my trial be registered/listed"- very informative reading.
Posts that "claim" to speak for the CEO or "the company" to me, are always suspect- when no one else has read or seen that same info publicly released. That's my opinion.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
