Q-dot:
You, as others earlier, are conflating and inflating JP's comments. I'll assume your motives are pure (that is, trying to point out that a healthy level of skepticism is always a good idea in investing bio), but that doesn't allow you to make up facts. The facts are that JP, by my count, used the term 'slam dunk' twice... not "at least a half a dozen times." Furthermore, and more importantly, he NEVER used it in relation to the safety of proellex, the fact suggested by your placing Dews quote about pumping next to Clark about safetys. His first use of 'slam dunk' was in relation to efficacy (referring to an efficacy study with a p value of .000000001), which, from my point of view, would indeed qualify as a bona fide efficacy 'slam dunk'. The second time he used it, it was in regard to the 'straight-fordwardness' of the protocol design of the androxol phase III studies and had nothing to do whatsoever with either proellex nor safety.
His actual comments regarding proellex safety are the following: in his answer to the first caller, he stated that the drug "appears to be safe", but they have to 'finish the trials to be sure'. His only other comment about safety was in his closing remarks, when he said "the deeper we go, safety is more and more apparent".
That's it. Two 'slam dunk' comments, only one about proellex and that characterizing the efficacy of 1x10-9. Regarding safety, the comments I quoted above are literally his words, and to me show a cautious optimism, nothing more. Far from the 'pumping' howled about by earlier posters.
Now, if you would like to take the opposite tack from the accusation of 'pumping' and you wish to advance the argument that his actual comments I've quoted would indicate that JP has secret doubts about the safety of proellex, and that fits into a historical pattern of good drugs gone bad that JP has been involved with... well, it's a free message board.
Market Data 
Markets 
