Replies to post #80243 on Amarantus Bioscience Holdings Inc (AMBS)

[blackhawks]

but IMO BD/AMBS did verify the published findings in the small clinical performance study just recently done and this is why they entered into an Agreement with AMBS to develop the test for them.. why else would they enter into an agreement if they did not like what they found? why would AMBS make the agreement specifying they retained full ownership of the IP and future possible IP. Fluff? i don't think BD would want to be associated with Fluff.

My understanding is that there is an assay underway at BD Biosciences of the LymPro AD blood test.

I do not believe that 'like' enters into a business decision to do an assay. That would be as though a company doing the assay had
pre-determend the results. Not a scientifically sound assumption.

And, I'll bet from time to time, law of averages, BD has in fact found some bioscience company's agent, test, drug to in fact be clinically wanting or as you state, to be 'fluff'.

There is no guilt by association in a process that is meant to determine 'fluff or not fluff'!

Zoom, the 'tiebreaker for me in most of these board disputes over the meaning of 'news' is: How is pps responding to the most recent news/mid-year update letter?

We've all seen stocks that have risen upon the release of news, so it's apparent that investors are capable of making investment decisions based upon a fair reading of the news at least some of the time.

To assume the AMBS news is too arcane, that it's only because people aren't doing their DD, that the pps would rise in response to a proper understanding of the meaning of the news, gives too little credit to the investor universe and too much credit to the people making the claim of superior insight.