"What datum do you base this on and wouldn't you agree your view on the data is SPECULATORY?"
No. I would not agree. My veiw of the data being positive is based on the treatment benefit outcome. The efficacy is better than any other drug's data to date. Because the drug does not indiscriminately target growth factors and does not live a lenghty systemic life it appears what nature has created has a better MOA than a man-made large molecule VEGF inhibitor such as Avastin. By acting from within the endothelial cells it appears to have a major advantage to Avastin. I would consider the unproven safety concerns far more speculatory than my positive perception of the current datasets.
"Afterall, small cap biotechs are speculative in nature."
And? Why do you invest in them? Where there is the possibility of great risk lies the potential of great reward and I believe that this is a classic example of how the individual investor is always the "last one to know".
"If you think delivering Squalamine as a systemic IS NOT a safety concern with the current mindset at the FDA then you have not done your homework."
I did NOT say it is NOT a concern of the agency. Don't take what I said out of context, my friend. I said that there has been no evidence, to date, of systemic toxicities at the doses being tested for AMD. Why is this a hard concept for you to grasp? In most diseases there is a risk reward ratio with regard to any viable treatment option. A drug may give a patient clinical benefit by stopping or slowing the progression of the disease in question and the real question is whether or not the taking nothing as an alternative is worth it or not. There are many approved drugs today with a give and take profile. ALL I am saying is that so far Squalamine seems to propose a risk reward ratio that is far into the realm of the patient's favor! The alternative is blindeness or Macugen/PDT. I'll take Squalamine, thank you.
"I would like for you present to the board what subjective evidence you have reviewed to determine Squalamine doesn't have any safety issues when administered."
Why don't YOU provide some subjective evidence that you have reviewed that shows me that there ARE safety issues? It goes both ways. I believe that the answers to human diseases lie within natures confines and I believe Genaera is holding a winning lottery ticket in Squalamine.
"Do you have access to follow up care from Mexico and the current patients in Phase II?"
No offense to you but that is a uneducated question that you know the answer to already. There were studies done at far higher doses in cancer, as ridge runner 9 pointed out earlier, that demonstrate MTD at levels in upwards of 30-50 times higher without irreversible incident even at those4 levels. Take the last word if you like but I'm going to bed now and sleeping well with my very substantial investment in Genaera. I'm not as worried as some here are. Makes me wonder if I am sharing my time with competent others.---biocrio.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
