Ron, if you have something on me, BE DIRECT.
Miljenko - I have absolute nothing against you. In fact, I am well aware that you and Rick and Peter Suzman and the other serious biofreaks are astute observers of the biotech scene. Your opinions are consistently of the highest caliber. All of us want to be respected for the our viewpoints - my focus tends to be more closely linked to the interpretation of the bench science while others are more familiar with intricacies of the clinical trials process. But we all have fact-based, well reasoned viewpoints to offer.
My prior errors of judgement (or whatever phrase is appropriate) are now more public than those for the vast majority of SI participants. I think I've paid my dues. I also believe I've made a sustained effort to maintain a high level of posting since my return (and I've offered those who disagree an email to forward to SI for my dismissal). The reason I've alluded to your recent posts towards me as 'shadow' etc. is because they had the appearance, and certainly the effect, of 'piling on' . I don't think I would be alone in resenting this.
I wholeheartedly respect YOUR opinions, Miljenko, and I regret and apologize for the harsh tones in my recent posts to you.
I identify with the medical maladies of close relatives - my 89 year-old father had bilateral pneumonia this summer. I spent 2 weeks at his house attending to bodily functions, having him at one point break down in tears in my arms from the humiliation of the circumstances (this from a man who escaped Nazi Germany and soon thereafter was a translator for the American Army in WWII Europe); this was indeed a riveting experience. Whether it is behavior towards our family, friends, or total strangers, I am convinced that many, if not all, the folks I encounter on SI are honorable and caring citizens.
Finally, I am as completely guilty of transgressions into the world of ivory tower science as you were (and are?). In fact, during my prior (halcyon) days, I started a thread based on the premise of comparing the science of various BTs. This was an attempt to strip away all the hype and narrow focus of single-company threads and achieve an actual side-by-side comparison of the science of BTs doing similar work [the effort failed based, IMO, on my own naivete about investors' objectivity and some very 'dishonorable' posting behavior from someone who may no longer be with SI]. I think red flags of caution that you or I may wave based on 'the science' should have AT LEAST an equal footing to cautionary pronouncements of questionable business plans by others. The fact that you were positive (based on the science) while Rick was circumspect about ISIP and CNSI should and must have validity in the converse: if our evaluation of the science casts severe doubt on the company's claims, our invocation of warning and caution merits equal recognition, regardless of the strength of the business plan. In my view, this latter scenario (the science casting doubt on a strong business plan) is significantly under-represented here.
I gotta go. Perhaps more later.
I would value maintaining a dialog with you, Miljenko. |
