When you do your own due diligence to the point that you know that the mainstream media is making a ghastly mistake in misreporting on a subject, you know you're either, completely wrong or FAR AHEAD OF THE CURVE.
Personally, I'll take the risk that I'm far ahead of the curve, in this context. 60 minutes, is, for anyone who reads science journals, clearly incorrect and their "expert" apparently is not that much of an expert when it comes to current technologies or may have an interest in saying what he said, and they didn't vet him well enough.
As evidence of WHEN the media is wrong, one only has to look back at the way the media reported the issues leading up to the Iraq War and the financial crisis, when there were plenty of researchers and even government agencies saying enough to make a reasonable person quite knowledgeable. The media says what their advertisers want them to say, and what is least likely to result in controversy for their own business.
To be a good investor, one has to delve deeper, do one's own research, and rely on your own ability to find even more reliable information than the mainstream market is aware of...
For instance, to this day, the New York Time's article reporting on that famous case from last year, the Sherley case, subjecting stem cell funding to a temporary injunction, said that the ruling made stem cell research "illegal". No number of emails to them corrected that misinformation. Facts did not correct that misinformation. They were sure, I'm guessing, that they got that right because some "expert" on their staff - said that they had gotten it right.
But the New York Times wasn't right.
Bio when I was working in Intelligence and my staff was screening 70 daily newspapers for the political leadership for the morning briefing folders my rough number for total BS written was about 70%.
Most folks have no idea how little, about 30%, holds up to scrutiny.
Great post. You are so right. There are many forces behind what is published and why. Trial results will set everything right, either it is a woohoo for mankind and this firm, or this firm folds. That simple.
BTW...Jesh...you are head to head with Smear in the race to see who is the biggest dumbass......my money is still on smear, but you could still take the cake!
I appreciate, more than most, the sensitive nature of T.V/Media reporting. I smiled at the initial report of the CBS 'expert'. The simple truth remains that, regardless of what she thinks...all she did for me was rule out CBS. Now, this is fine by me b/c I have no connection to them whatsoever. Yet, at the same time, I'm sure that Ms. Falco (over at CNN) and a name-less bird over at ABC, would be smiling too.
As a matter of fact, just like reporting on the 'Non-Destructive' technique (about a week or so ahead of the release back in '06), or putting up the Barbara Walters Special info (month's in advance), complete with date of airing...we'll still find those who just run an agenda based upon religion, or greed.
People talk and connections are made and information does escape and is passed around. One thing needs to be kept in mind about the 60 Minutes story: They had an agenda to spread on 'scams'. The reporter, the expert, and the entire concept line was not really about stem cells at all. It was about those, some who live in nations where this nonsense is untouchable, who just run scams.
Lastly, I'm sure, no...make that positive, that Dr. Lanza and Dr. Schwartz both enjoyed airing of the show (as silly as it was).
Our time will soon be here...and that's what is important. Right Brenin???? ;).
C'ya on TV.
Typically you did not even watch the program and are making insinuating implications anyway to support your other ID's and other liar pumpers insidious postings. Firstly, the "expert" is not a "he," she is Dr. Sussman who advises the FDA about stemcell research. Secondly the rest of what you post is pure drivel and not worth reading. Why has Big Pharma already said "no thanks." How many more billions of diluted shares for ten year wait for possible treatments? Why does actc now call itself a "supplier"? Are you still really implying the "cure" is near at hand? Do you really think new investors will read your nonsense and feel heartened by an elegant form of lying? Feel free to respond with your religious syllogisms.
Hey Jesh.. Is this the same Dr. Sussman that "Advised" the FDA to give ACT it's second approval just thirty days after their first approval to inject stem cells into the human body. Hmmmm... Expert? Advisor? Whatever you want to call her. My money is on Dr. Lanza.