good-pal: if I thought that "some of RECAF was hype but not all of it" I'd be selling my shares immediately. You either believe or don't believe that Dr. Moro has been publishing honest data. That's the way I look at it at least.
And P.S I don't believe that the company has intentionally mislead investors...Using the word "approved" in place of "cleared" does not strike me as intentional deception. It seems to me like a technicality. The original P.R stated that they received approval for a 510k, and in my opinion informed investors should have immediately realized what a 510k involves from a regulatory point of view -- it has it's own process just like the PMA/BLA/etc applications have. It is not the responsibility of the company to educate uninformed investors, and frankly if investors didn't know what a 510k was to begin with it's tough to believe that they would have acted any differently if the P.R stated that the company "recieved FDA clearance for Histo-RECAF" rather than "received FDA approval."
Can you honestly say that investors who DID NOT KNOW WHAT A 510K IS would have acted any different if the wording was "clearance"? Give me a break. This is Wall Street not Disneyland and the company should not be held accountable for the ignorance of investors when they CLEARLY STATED IT WAS A 510K. The SEC should have notified them to change the wording, fined them a few thousand dollars, and moved on.
Now...if the SEC found that Moro misrepresented the study results (the second part of the SEC inquiry) I would consider that serious and would probably end up orchestrating a class action suit. However, Moro's publishing of the data in totality at least year's ISOBM, and Abbott's signing on, convinces me that there was no tampering.
That leaves the only possibility for wrongdoing as the scenario where Moro connivingly "doctored" the samples. Ie: the samples weren't blind, the samples weren't representative, etc. If Moro did that, however, nobody would ever be able to find out until a third party tests RECAF.
I think it's a ridiculous argument...One would have to believe that Moro and the other prestigious doctors that have published 90% specificity/sensitivity are working in collusion. One would also have to believe that the folks I talk to at the "research center" are all working in collusion with Moro to "dupe" the public. That's ridiculous. To the contrary I find the lab folks to be extremely passionate and confident about the technology. It's also pretty tough to believe that Dr. Gold hasn't "looked under the hood" of the science. And then there's Abbott.
DISCLAIMER: NEVER ASSUME INFO ON MESSAGE BOARDS TO BE ACCURATE. ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. DON'T BUY STOCK BASED ON THIS POST OR ANY OTHER POST. I OWN A LONG POSITION IN THIS STOCK AND THEREFORE I AM BIASED.
