Hi, Padco -
"I don't buy this justification. I cannot imagine that announcing a study would earn the wrath of HC. Releasing information about the study would be a different story. As an aside, not the interchange of the terms ph III and study. You would have to read the article to see this.
Jim, Fox, there is a way of justifying Rebecca's actions however. If you concede that her one overriding goal is to preserve DMX and its potential then she had to do what it took to maintain a share price that Aqua could sell into. No doubt it paints a picture of a Machiavellian CEO, but if thats what it takes then so be it. A junior biotech trying to go it alone will get help from no one."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Padco, some of the things that have happened with DMX have three or four possible explanations. Even those who are disposed to more reasonable interpretations have been provoked to anger, on occasion - myself included.
Will the final results justify the frustrating lack of explanation on many fronts? I don't know. I certainly understand the gamut of emotions that investors feel about this stock. There's absolutely no doubt that the company itself is responsible for the widely varying opinions on what the "truth" of things is: if they leave investors to guess, how can they blame them when they guess wrongly?
Before the share-rights offering re-ignited this board, I said:
"DMX: no in-between. Never seen another stock like it. How will it all come out?
Probably, different than anyone expected."
It's showing every sign of coming true.
Regards,
Jim |
