If Neurology is still reviewing the tox data, I still think that we should be concerned. You can never tell what they might turn up.
What I'd like to see (haha) is more transparency and more accountability from the management of these companies. How many CEO's like the guy at PARS or Gold at DNDN or Seizinger at GPCB--I bet Dew could name at least a dozen more off the top of his head--before shareholders/investors and analysts (I'm including Neuro here) start to hold these guys to the fire.
The toughest question on any COR CC I've heard came from an individual investor asking Stoll to justify COR's leaving its area of core competence in order to do an in-licensing. That really got Stoll's attention and got his ire up. Good. We need more of that. Since people like Neuro have more access to management than your average shareholder, then I just think Neuro needs to take more responsibility in holding management accountable and forcing them to be more transparent. After all, Neuro has led his subscribers to companies like PARS and NEOT and COR. Doesn't he have some responsibility to them to ask the really tough questions of management? Like I said, if just one analyst had insisted that Seizinger provide written proof (or even asked him if he had it) that the FDA has signed off on the amended protocols, much of the Satraplatin debacle at the FDA might have been avoided. I think analysts have a very positive role to play here, if they have the courage to live up to their responsibilities.
I think there are some tough questions that should be directed at Stoll at the next quarterly CC. Let's all, shareholders and analysts alike, stand up and start asking them.
As we used to say in the Sixties: "Question Authority"
Bladerunner
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
