this board's moderator started this back-and-forth.
yes, some pphm'ers are premature in their level of certainty...no doubt about it...but the thought that keep's pounding in my head is that some skeptics are confusing the the science with the company.
because it's taken a long time to get to this point (and for which drugs is that not the case?), and pphm has been chronically tight for funds (which biotechs aren't before they score?), and because you could make a strong argument that they did some slimy finance deals in the past, they have a definitively uphill battle and old wounds/scars with many..no doubt about it.
on the other hand...
their slimy deals did keep the science mostly unencumbered, which bodes well if it proves to be successful in any of several of the oncology, viral, imaging, or delivery applications for which trials are being reviewed..
there was an earlier post today that trashed them for the ATM, as if the investors were not well aware that dilution was necessary at that point, again.. sure beat more PIPES and warrants...
PPHM went through years of bashers claiming they didn't REALLY have rights to the science. i guess that one will come around again soon, too. will that happen here first?
AI
