Macerimmer, I agree that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. However when heavy stock manipulation is permitted the simplest is not always the correct hypothesis.
That is why we look for corroborative evidence. The pipeline, the cash on hand, the validation of the quality of their science as supported by the Patent Board, Vie Awards, John Hopkins, Aduro, Teva, Jazz etc...
Then look at the Board and the management Team research their back ground they are diverse and not an incompetent group.
When the simplest explanation doesn't add up and you still go with it. Then you have a negligent investigation.
That being said the communication and transparency of the company stinks and one has to wonder why. A piece of the puzzle is still missing. Basically I look at possible motives for the lack of communication. In the end you may be right, in my mind there are too many unanswered questions to leave it at that.
Hopefully we will find out soon.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
