Thats good advice, but before i do, this is a binary event, you better bet on the correct horse. Ie not a bad idea to try to poke some holes in the cant fail theories out there! Lol
And you talk about pressure, you are the one that posts every single day berating the dnp. You sound VERY worried to me. If AA is guaranteed, what are you so ticked at dnp about?. Do you honestly believe they already finalized the decision and are purposely sitting on it, not announcing? The dpo or sdr theory makes sense. But if that process has already been set in motion, what does berating the dnp daily accomplish?
is it possible rhe fda is stalling and has not made the formal request for additional data to srpt yet? So again, you claim to know it all, you shoot down other theories, which leaves you with one theory. So pls answer, when is this AA announcement coming? It must be imminent correct? If no why not, according to your one conveniant theory?
What are you so worried about? What is wrong IF they are waiting for nore definitive data? More definitive data will probably lead to the best decision. I have nothing against bulls, its over the top pumpers i am not too impressed with. What does farkas and pumpers have in common? They are both way too biased
You make it sound like all these fda processes take geological time to play out. But what you gloss over is the fda, not always, but quite regularly manages to make decisions and finish these processes completely on time and before the pdufa date. What the heck is going on here, even if you assume dpo, and possibly sdr? Whatever it is its quite the elaborate "process"....
And what the permabulls wont admit to, is a very plausible theory- there is internal conflict within fda, and there was a SDR, and everyone ASSUMES the promovi D data resolved that SDR. But maybe it didnt. Maybe they are waiting for more definitive clinical data......well anyway, one thing is for certain, we keep waiting......
Youre the one who doesnt make any sense. If AA is the ONLY logical outcome, as you claim, sit back, pop the bubbly and enjoy. No need to wring your hands and troll the dnp
So if you are so confident that no ghosts exist and AA is a done deal, i assume 100% of your investment capital is in SRPT? I mean what better opportunity could possibly be out there? And if you have better investment opps, i hope you share them with us!
Keep in mind, srpt, while in a very strong uptrend, is still below levels where it was before Hideous BDs were released ( and i think we all can agree that its very possible the fda leaked details of those BDs ahead of time) . Is the current price (again below where it was before release of BDs) consistent with approval having been leaked from fda to major news outlet(s)?
So how confident are you that the fda has decided on AA? And that that anonymous author had a source within Fda? Care to quantify?
So if all the logic points beyond a definitive doubt to AA coming, when is the announcement? And if its not imminent, again based on all the incontrovertible logic, why is the announcement not imminent?
And lets face it grey, the entire market is making a mountain out of a mole hill, not just me. If we werent, and AA was as ironclad as you claim, and you now claim that someone within fda has LEAKED the AA decision and subsequent dpo, the stock would probably be between 40-55. Not 26. Not so easy and ironclad to explain that, is it? I mean if this leaked decision from within a source as solid as fda has reached a publication as prominent as the wsj, why arent investors investing in srpt in such a way that AA is guaranteed? Do you see that in option activity? I sure dont
And hopefully you see my point: his extreme bias toward drisa (even tho you think it was warranted) was part and parcel of his extreme bias against etep
These are also two completely different statements: 1) i have no doubt a drug would kill someone 2) i would speculate that the drug would kill someone . He chose the more extreme statement. Very typical of him and very consistent with how biased he was against etep
But having said that, i would think any respected scientist would be of the opinion that (at least) 9 fold de novo increase in D production has very significant pharmacological effect
I am very long srpt but i am very skeptical that the 201/202 data was a slam dunk due to how they compared to baseline, as you well know. But i am hoping the Promovi data, that was clearly better controlled, coupled with previous data is a slam dunk. We shall see
And the reason its not so black and white is that im pretty certain srpt and micelli and nelson et al would be of the strong opinion that 5 fold is worthy of approval. So again, is this a material event?
So let me ask you this: if the D #s came back 5fold. Would srpt decide that was a material event? And would they release that to the public- remembering that by srpt disclosing the data, according to you, it was an admission that the data didnt "measure up"?? Ahhh not so black and white is it?