I don't think I'd 100% trust any CEO I didn't personally know. But I don't plan on liquidating all my equity positions. You may be so brilliant you'd have known not to trust Elizabeth Holmes, but I'm not so sure I'd have figured out the problem.
You've said, in essence, you think supporting information is unnecessary when a CEO says endpoints have been met, and that everyone who has doubts and wants the absolutely customary statistical support typically provided by other companies with the TLR (or certainly within the time Anavex has had) still wouldn't be satisfied and would complain about some other items of unprovided information; I really couldn't agree less. I can come up with excuses for it, but it's weird how little solid statistics have been provided; at some point perhaps that will damage my trust to the point where I take your suggestion.
BTW, you're obviously in a small minority among investors generally, though not on this board. If most investors believed, as you do, that the CEO'S word by itself is good enough, this stock would already be through the roof.
(The pure believer vibes are so strong here I'm starting to feel like I'm hanging out with the audience at a Missing CryptoQueen conference.) (BTW, it's, IMO, a great podcast.)
Nonsense. As a shareholder, you can believe in the potential of the science AND be critical of the CEO at the same time. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Similarly, you can believe in the potential of America and still disagree vehemently with the President. You don’t have to give up your citizenship just because you disagree with the President and you don’t have to sell your stock because you disagree with the CEO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
