Replies to post #49481 on Biotech Values

[Biowatch]

If pharma drug reps touted a drug online for unapproved uses, they and their parent company would get spanked by the FDA. (And lawyers...)

Then again, most people under the age of 30 or 40 are so used to posting online, it's hard to resist.

Nothing like an anonymous keyboard and screen to make people post without thinking.

[DewDiligence]

>He pumped the stock. Said he was long, shopped at the market's and intended to be long for a long time. Big deal.<

He posted repeatedly that WFMI’s main competitor, OATS, would go bankrupt. Then, lo and behold, WFMI makes a buyout offer for OATS. Even if the FTC doesn’t find this of interest, the SEC might.

[ThomasS]

o/t: Any competent CEO/management team has better things to do than post on any msg board in general, and their own company's in particular.

[apljack]

"I'm sure lots of CEO's are tempted to post online, even to yahoo. I'm not sure why this is such bad news from the standpoint of the govt. He pumped the stock. Said he was long, shopped at the market's and intended to be long for a long time."

According to the article he pumped WFMI while also bashing OATS (which he had an eye on acquiring and is now having to justify the attempted acquisition.) This seems much more than the appearance of impropriety by an insider, to me. IMO, the rules should keep insiders from the public forum so as to avoid ANY appearance of conflict, undue influence, or other agenda that benefits them personally or benefits their company. I'm sure the SEC spells this out very clearly and those who listen to public statements made during conference calls and the Q&A sessions all are familiar with the "dance that corporate officers do to avoid crossing the line of those rules. See the article below

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/564597#messageMUST

aj