Some blast SA when they write positive articles, but are willing to buy their arguments with no questions when they're negative. Lack of critical thinking skills.
Keep, let's be clear on this since you obviously can't read. You're statement. "Mk.k, I believe that the exclusion was that you had to have cataracts removed before having RPE cells injected into the eye." Is WRONG. Got it? Pretty simple - should be even for you.
And what FACTS you idiot?
Keep isn't a paid anything. No one would pay for his rubbish. He can barely hold a thought let alone make a coherent argument. I agree with him that investors need to look at companies with a critical eye - what keep lacks is the ability to examine a situation and ask questions before asking questions. Most often he states a position and then asks questions. Might a flighty fellow there.
To be clear, it's keep that's wrong on the exclusion criteria.
You are quite wrong on the exclusion criteria. And it is also a fair question to ask what the acuity was in the untreated eye before any treatments.
Keep,I'm denying nothing. You're talking out of both sides of your pie hole. What I am going to do is wait for the company to provide its results - any reasonable journalistic effort would have included some effort to talk with ACT about the suggestion that the cataract surgery is the reason for the improvement and would have included a discussion with other experts in the field - this article does none of that and I don't see where the author has the credentials to draw these conclusions on his own.
It may turn out to be true and still not significant to the the treatment. It may turn out to be true and question the viability of the treatment. It could be the reason that no peer journal has published the news. It could be other things as well or it could be nothing at all. But whatever it is, it's still just ONE patient in a safety trial
Who's been the board idiot squawking about a cure for months? Who's the one that smooches Lanza's butt? You question stupid things like why Wotton doesn't respond to something some Japanese company does. My questions are about the business model.
On this latest issue, I certainly don't have the background to opine on the validity of the article. Ido wonder what the credentials are of the author and if he ran his premise past someone with a medical background. I'll wait for the official results.
You are a total idiot if you expect him to talk about something like that! (maybe if asked on an investor call) Do other CEO's come out and talk about our trial results!? Did the Samsung CEO come out to talk about the iPhone 6? Have you ever even worked in a corporate environment? Cluless.
they were running out of shares regardless. RS had nothing to do with that - Oops, second time you've been wrong just today.
Swede - All one had to do was look at the number of shares remaining to be issued and it was obvious more shares were needed. This was the case with or without the RS. So the bigger question that you need to ask is how the company will fund itself if the measure fails? I do agree that mgmt needs to provide some kind of update to shareholders. No news on a JV doesn't mean it's dead - that type of news usually seems to come out of nowhere since the discussions are kept quite.
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”
Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered.
Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled."