Replies to post #253204 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[frrol]

On a related note, cherry-picking in PR's is very common, and understandable: biotech and Pharmas like to toot the horn on what they believe is promising research results. Two things to keep in mind, though:

1. Investors need to know cherry-picking and acknowledge it for what it is.
2. The company's conclusion is the least important one. More important is potential partners' conclusions, and the most important is the FDA's. And naturally guess which two the market cares the most about.

New investors in biotech get misled by cherry-picking all the time. "The trial showed it works!!!" they shout. No. It showed it might work.

[loanranger]

"I have doubts how complaint of omission to point out otherwise obvious fact would fare in legal actions."

You're right to have those doubts, but it INVITES legal actions that might have additional bases for a claim.
Hence I said "BY itself it would be less meaningful than as a pattern of conduct, but the next thing you know some joker pops up with the same analysis that you conducted, headlines it as "What are they trying to hide?" in a SeekingAlpha blog, and bingbangboom there's a bunch of Rosen clones doing an "investigation".
And as we know, legal actions can be damaging even when the defendant prevails in the end. It's a calculated risk that is easier to take from a position of strength. I'll leave it there.