Shorts state the obvious, while longs continue to ignore the obvious
This company has no revenues to mention. No significant scientific evidence and is trading at a significant speculative premium.
Longs are in denial if they think STSI should be valued at $5+ right now. Just because they may have witness an unscientific benefit doesn't mean the studies will bear that out. There is great risk in being long in this stock. Just look at how the management BOTCHED the last anticipated PR in the fall and had to correct their numbers.
Nothing in this company should give anyone confidence in this stock's valuation. Word of mouth isn't spreading. Studies aren't coming. Longs should be so lucky to have an opportunity to exit at $2 right now and wait for something REAL and measurable to invest in if this product does have any potential.
Some of what you say is true (for the moment), but not necessarily for the future. Other stuff is FUD.
1) "..doesn't mean that studies will bear that out." True, but longs believe the studies WILL bear that out. A disagreement on the study outcomes. Outcomes which neither you nor the longs know for sure.
2) Botching the last PR was a poke in the eye, but insignificant in the long run. If shorts have to rely on such a small matter, it only makes your case look weaker.
3) "Word isn't spreading." Without evidence to support this statement, it is necessarily not true. What evidence do you have that GNC sales increases have stalled? (We already know that revenue stalled from Q1 to Q2, but additional sales were made to keep it flat from one Q to the next. Additional sales means additional customers, hence word of mouth is spreading).
4) "Studies aren't coming". Again, you do NOT know this for a fact. Unless you've spoken to the company who told you in private that no studies will be coming. I doubt that ever happened. Therefore, you should have written "studies haven't been released", which is true. This is pretty much your standard method of operation: taking a fact (haven't been released) and trying to turn it into something much more sinister. Why do you continue using this tactic when it is so obvious and just makes you look, once again, more desperate?
Why do folks hold on to shares at $2 instead of selling? Well, 2 reasons come to mind : 1) many STSI shareholders are investors and, as such, don't really care what the pps is at this level. The shares are in their IRAs and have been put away for some years to come. They will add additional shares on a timetable (perhaps the first of the month or the quarter) and average down or up, depending. 2) Others expect successful studies released outside of market hours or perhaps a partnership or other good news, thus they want to be sure to be in the stock when it gaps up the next trading session.
If I got paid by reply, wouldn't I create a bunch of fake ids to talk back and forth and rake in some real money? Looks like your argument just failed. Let us know if you ever have an original thought.