|
You write in English, but fail to understand the written word. Highly unusual. You have not identified the supposed "lies", because I have been truthful. Yet, because I am a true gentleman, I have stated (a few days ago) that I thought the stock would rise to 105. I fail to see your problem with that. On the other hand, you have stated that in a trial where people failed triple therapy and switched to triple therapy with Viracept, the "response" was a drop in viral load to undetectable levels. Dream on. I gave you the name of the person who was a co-chair at the review of the St. Petersburg conference, held in San Francisco who refutes your claim. You act as a cheerleader for AGPH...as if your life depended on it. You have no idea of what it takes to manage a billion dollar portfolio, and you never will. And that, my dear friend, is no lie. The marketing campaign of AGPH has been successful, but I have always been more concerned over the issue of public health than the over or undervaluation of a single stock, which at any given time (long or short) amounted to probably .5% of a portfolio. That is why I have tried to bring attention to what I believe to be a marketing effort that has crossed the line of what is acceptable. I will not give the names of people at the FDA who have voiced concern to me - they don't need you harassing them, too. I would like to pose a question and a serious one. Suppose, just suppose, that Viracept is a less "powerful" PI than Crix. Suppose that there are people on triple comb. therapy with Crix who are handling it OK (with side effects), and suppose some of them switch to therapy with Viracept. What would the people in charge of advertising at AGPH tell those patients when viral load rebounds? Your passion for defending you opinion regarding AGPH - stock price & science is your own business. My point is that this should be about more than selling pills and making money. The marketing of drugs for HIV should be highly specific, as precise as possible regarding medical claims, and lacking in promotion. Regarding Merck, they too aren't angels. They need to devote more attention to Crix side effects, and because attention has been given to the side effects, they will - because it is in their own interests to do so. |
