I'm still baffled that my messages are perceived to be sheer hype and/or contrivances. If I've posted anything not based on fact or expressed an opinion that was not framed as such, than I will accept the criticism. On the other hand, 1. the entire list of stocks in my 'performance post' was derived from an article in Genetic Engineering News a couple of months ago. This silly grouping is theirs, not mine. In my view there are many commonalties among the companies; of course they're not identical and comparing 2 specific companies may show significant discrepancies. However, I found the grouping appropriate. 2. What was contrived about my post? To repeat, I responded to all of Richard Harmon's statements with alternate - and equally valid -personal opinions and/or with factual material that supported my own statements. Why is this 'contrived'? In fact, it is wholly reasonable to state a contrasting opinion: that Richard Harmon's original response to my performance rankings was totally contrived since it was clearly based on preconceived ideas about Ariad, void of due diligence into the actual and factual events of the last month or so.
If this continues to be perceived as hype, then classify me an Ariad hypster...and press that 'ignore this person' on your console.
To the question, does Ariad have the best science: I would begin by reading these 2 articles (there are many more):
1. The Science article of last January showing ARGENT in vivo ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. A PNAS article from November, 1999 showing a method of significantly enhancing transcriptional activation ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It was Ariad's science, more specifically, the science of Gerald Crabtree and Stuart Schreiber, that brought the company to my attention in the first place. |
