Following is another comment posted to today's short article on Matinas:
WDR:
If you are offering to retract additional false "facts" in your article, let's start with the two discussed in my last comment:
First, that GJG is intending to unload its stock.
Second, that Rutgers had "failed" trials for the drugs it sold to Matinas.
I welcome any evidence to support either or both of these alleged facts.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but what in the blue blazes does the fact that a passive shareholder, whose husband has had past issues with the SEC, have to do with the merits of a biotech company, whose drugs are now in a number of clinical trials including one being funded by NIH?
If the person in question was involved in management of the company, or was even a director, I would share your concern. However, I am sure that many successful companies, including blue chippers, have shady shareholders. So what?
As with any clinical stage biotech company, the value of this company lies in the results of the clinical trials. On this, I am sure we can agree.
If and when the clinical trials demonstrate that effective but otherwise toxic drugs, such as amikacin and amphotericin B, can be made safe, while maintaining their efficacy, the company will be wildly successful. If the trials fail, the company will have little or no value.
Assuming we agree on this, please enlighten me on any evidence you have that Matinas' encochleation formulation does not make effective but toxic drugs safe and effective.
Incidentally, since you are writing anonymously anyway, would you please be so kind as to enlighten your readers as to whether you covered your short on Matinas and, if so, when.
If you are still short on Matinas, please disclose the extent of your short position.
I have truly enjoyed our discourse, and welcome your disclosure of evidence that supports ANY of the facts in your article, other than that a passive shareholder may have some connection to a person who ran into problems with the SEC.
LM
