And herein lies the problem of easily said but empty words.
YOU SAID: "How do you know that 99% of publicly traded biotech isn't just a way to offload BP's cost for research?"
I KNOW that because I have a functioning brain and therefore I understand that when you generalize "99%" of anything into one group it is most likely not going to be accurate.
OK, How do you KNOW that what you said is TRUE?
PROVE to me and all on this board that 99% of public biotech companies are just being used to fund the research cost for big pharma at the expense of small investors.
That is what you are implying. How do you KNOW that? Back up to all of us and prove your words. Or are they just empty words with absolutely NOTHING of any meaning or importance to back them up?
They are just empty meaningless words solely for the sake of being negative.
YOU SAID: "Perhaps handsomely paid biotech executives are all in on the game of research for researches sake, paid for by naive retail where they never really had a chance."
That statement at least may be TRUE, in a small part, but the FOOLISH use of the word "ALL" in your statement again gets us back to empty meaningless words.
I will explain so that maybe you can understand logic and reason.
YES, there may be a SMALL percentage of biotech executives who are in it for "the game of research for researches sake" because they just want to do research or because they just want a paycheck or because they want to make a name for themselves or because they want to win the Nobel prize or for whatever reason ..., when they KNOW they have no chance of succeeding as you imply.
BUT to say "ALL" again is just asinine.
SO AGAIN, PROVE your empty words.
PROVE that NOT A SINGLE biotech executive is in it for a good cause, to try to save and cure patients.
PROVE that they are ALL in it just for the money.
AGAIN just negative nonsense for the sole purpose of being negative.
AGAIN just EMPTY MEANINGLESS WORDS just to spout something negative.
It is NOT that I have "some pretty low standards" for the company management, I just have REALISTIC standards because I understand they can only work with what they have to work with.
I am sure they all WISH the trial data was further along and was Much better, but again, in real life, they do not have a magic wand to wave to make it that way.
PLEASE tell me what YOU would have done differently with the trials that they have going on, that would have the share price so much higher than it is right now, which is based on what every other stock price is based on and that is what the market thinks it is currently worth.
PLEASE give us all your list of brilliant ideas that you would have executed differently and then tells us why you believe they would have resulted in a much higher stock price.
