Ok Cac,
I will grant you that your English is far better than my Spanish. (I don’t speak it.)
Many of your arguments are illogical, based on false premises or pure misrepresentations. I will take you through some of them in your current post to demonstrate the nonsense that you post repeatedly.
Here is one of your misrepresentations: “You are claiming "handling cases" then you know that BMY could not be right.” I never said that. I did say, “I doubt there ever was one [case].” (2016) By saying that I doubt that BMY has a case, I am saying that I find it improbable that BMY could win a case against IMCL. You misrepresent my post by restating it as a categorical statement.
Here is another example of your misrepresenting facts. I described my recent positions in IMCL in some detail which included writing outstanding puts that are in the money. Yet you write, “you could be interested without position in the company”. I made it clear that I had a position and what it was.
In fact, one of the problems that I have with your posts is the frequent categorical statements. Here are some examples.
You say, “Well, I will prefer the BMY legal department working for P. Dolan to you, they have all the facts and they feel they will prevail”. I agree with you favoring BMY’s legal department over me. They should have the facts. But where did you get the idea that the legal department of BMY has opined that BMY will prevail over IMCL in some suit? I am not aware of any such statement.
Another of your misrepresentations: ” You believe Bmy will be better not fighting for their rights after being cheated, fine with me.” I never said that BMY had been cheated. I have stated that BMY’s financial interests will best be served by working with IMCL to commercialize C-225. BMY has invested $1.2 billion already. IMCL does not have $1.2 billion. Nor did BMY invest $1.2 billion expecting to get the money back. They expect a return on the investment. The only way that will happen is to get C-225 approved and commercialized.
You say, “sam has been known to damage science fellows work of months … that is a crook to me”. How do you know that? Were you there? Did you observe first hand your allegations against Sam Waksal? I don’t know anything about those allegations. But if those allegations are false – you are libeling Sam Waksal.
This one is pure nonsense: “, the SEC/Justice/Congress is not there after any leak (there was none since that information belong to the shareholders, it was a service to the public)” First, some published reports suggest the government is interested in the leak. Second, saying the leak was OK because the information was the property of the shareholders, becomes laughable when you add that the information was used by shorts to misappropriate the value of the shareholders to the benefit of the shorts.
This question is interesting: “sam knew all the problems for months, only a rosy version was out, is that honest?” First, the premise that sam knew all the problems, is in doubt. But, maybe he did. Maybe BMY did too. How does a leader (corporate, military, government) deal with problems and his followers? I suspect that if the leader presented all the problems, issues, concerns, risks, etc. that he would soon find that he was replaced. Some level of optimism (rosey view) is required in leaders. This seems to me to be a systemic problem of some magnitude. A lot could be explained by this phenomenon.
More of your nonsense: You say, “sam knew that they need more clinical trials, he does not provides that information to shareholders, is that honest?” Experienced biotech/pharma investors know that generally 2 PIII’s are needed for drug approval. IMCL was submitting from a single PII. They did not have even one PIII. Approval from one PII is extraordinary but not impossible. Shareholders chose to believe. BMY chose to believe. You don’t think Sam fooled BMY into thinking they had done PIII’s?
BTW, you have not offended me. I do believe that you overstate things and in so doing are misleading others.
ij |
