I agree that we are not in a totally binary circumstance for the stock based on the AD trial results. That is an overstatement.
It was different when I first bought in around $4 in 2020 -- there were no Rett results beyond a half dozen Phase 1 participants and no PDD results at all, and no platform results. There was much less independent science on the S1R; there was no hint of chromatin/RNA impacts by 2-73. We did have the 2a results and the Australian anecdotes, and that was enough for me to take what was then a true binary risk. At $4, with an initial stake, because of the plausibility of an incredible scientific and financial success.
An AD 2b/3 trial failure then would have dropped the stock into pennies, but since then we have seen one de-risking development after another. While the chances for a successful AD trial have grown, more importantly from an investment perspective the chances of a total failure of the S1R thesis has almost disappeared. And as that happened I added shares; in this way I maintained my perceived, allowable downside dollar risk and doubled the upside. My basis is still just in the $5+ range with mostly well timed buys, especially after the PDD short attack.
Missling is an unusual science-first CEO who is also somewhat of a financial wizard. This is much preferable to a loudmouth promoter who would boost the stock price by selling pieces of the company to financiers and failing to explore the scientific frontiers where the true treasures lie. A salesman CEO would have no interest in a CNS-wide platform when an AD trial promises results, and would be only too happy to prematurely sell out this company for pennies compared to its true potential. Some people here, traders and insecure and impatient investors, obviously would prefer this. They don't like finding themselves in a company with a long time horizon. They blame Missling for being a bad CEO. They should instead consider whether they are just not good investors.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
