"I remember the run up that preceeded the MMD results and the constant PUMPING that apenny engaged in. When it crashed in a big way, I remember (rightly or wrongly) feeling duped by apenney."
- I wondered what you were trying to compensate for by putting the term "pumping" in block capitals, so I cast my mind back.
I recall offering revenue projections should iPlex be approved as a therapy for MMD. I also recall offering my personal estimates of possible outcomes of the Phase II study, along the lines of -
a) Compelling efficacy
b) Reasonable efficacy
c) Poor efficacy
I'm not certain that the categories were as I've just described - other than the fact that outright failure was one of the scenarios I suggested, and that I put the chances of that happening at either 10% or 15%.
So that everybody here is quite clear on your excuse for attacking me - was this the "pumping" you feel duped you?
If so, do you think you put the term in block capitals because you were all too aware that many investors would have an entirely different opinion of your accusation if they knew what the alleged pumping entailed?
Actually, I don't care to revisit that whole scenario. Going only by memory, there was a run-up in share price to $12 or so, and then a freefall to $4 or $5. It was painful. I just remember you as being "head cheerleader".
I can understand you'd prefer not to go into specifics.
It must be tempting for posters such as yourself, hubby, bugseypug, rehdvm, historian, terry etc to have the luxury of falsely accusing other posters who have committed the unforgivable crime of offering compelling arguments which are inconsistent with your own stances.
And for clarification, your memory is so unreliable that you've actually managed to blame me for some sort of concoction which apparently has its origins in the run-ups both in 2009 and in 2011.