BD, again, so eloquently put in a post. It's about time someone showed that some posters just use symantics to prove what was not said. Twisting to get investors to sell their shares is not what this board is for. Opinionated? That's ok but utter bladderol should not - GLTU again for two great posts today and I'm not against those who down play the success of a company nor do I pump up a company either. What I am just saying is that one should be careful in reading PR's and just go by what is said rather than what wasn't said!
It is good but I have seen better and combined with the lack of detail about the patients response leads me to conclude there may be more non-responders or low responders than many believe. If you have good data, you report it. They didn't, so one should reasonably be a bit skeptical until the company shares the data.
I am sure you recognize that the words in these press releases are very carefully chosen. They don't talk about filing a BLA and that is huge. They do talk about the mono trial and that tells me the data is not good enough for pursuing a BLA for combo (or the economics of it no longer make any sense) and can only be helpful for mono recruiting. Everyone will need to make their own judgment on this but I think it is very reasonable to read between the lines that there is some issue with the data.
CYDY was barely getting any money from PAulsen clients with each new round until this most recent one. That leads me to believe they must have given some pretty heavy hints that the data might be good in order to get the $10 million just before the critical data is released. If that is true, the investors supplying the $10 million might well feel aggrieved and pursue legal action. Hardly seems like a baffling situation to me but each person has to draw their own conclusions and since we don't have all the needed info, people will reach different conclusions.
I agree with you on this. Those were horrible terms and to sell those shares and warrants just before the data release with the huge potential dilution coming from the conversion of the warrants just ahead. This management team is evidently not as confident in the future as many believe.
Here I just disagree straightforwardly with you and think the absence of BLA in the press release where key data is revealed is telling. The previous comments were made prior to the data. Since they did not mention it in the press release once the data was known seems like a very, very significant matter.
That plus there may be some shorting by some who hold warrants and plan to convert them. By shorting on the data release bounce, they lock in a profit on the warrant conversion.
I didn't accuse anyone, just urged that attitude since I knew my comments would not be welcome by many.