Clearly the writer of this article hasn’t studied modern times.
At one time Kodak had everything in photography going for it but a disruptive technology, digital cameras (that Kodak could have owned), came along and ate their lunch.
PharmaCyte has a disruptive technology. What are established companies going to do, own it, or loose it?
It's Oldmusky, again. Could you please explain this article that compares PharmaCyte To Amgen. You are comparing an extremely successful Biotech to one with no revenues. I am not saying PMCB won't be successful, I am saying that comparing PharmaCyte to Amgen in an article such as this is, a red flag, clutching at straws, and quite worrisome.
To a savvy investor this type of a farce of a comparison seems odd and ill timed. It is a very transparent pump with no meat to it. It hurts the companies credibility, not help it. Its a bush league game when we want to hit the big leagues.
I am actually not complaining, please don't take it that way. I am trying to help. Right now your trusted longs are on edge. If this group of dedicated longs leaves you, you will no longer be able to raise money. I would pull this discrediting article and give your loyal following news on cells, testing and file the IND. SINCERELY TRYING TO HELP, Oldmusky
Brian... seriously? Like comparing a Ferrari (AMGN) to a car still in the shop (PMCB). Really dumb comparison in my opinion.
To put it another way...… IF PharmaCyte gets through this to the point where they get IND clinical trials under way..... and if that trial is successful... which of the two stocks would you rather own? Better yet, which gives the most bang for the buck potential with the least amount of money invested?
PCMB.
PCMB if successful will be a buyout target. Possibly AMGN.... or another company if CiaB is proven out.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
