Hi Linda. In your response to me, there were some misinterpretations of what I said that I would like to clear up.
Speaking of the recent Fortune article you said:
<<No, I don't believe for a moment that it was "timed" to coincide with a Schering event. Nor do I believe that Asensio was given more credence than any other sources. >>
I wasn't saying that the Fortune article was timed to coincide with a Schering event. What I said was that the original Asensio report last November was timed to come out after the announcement of the Schering deal and his report was not unexpected to certain people.
Regarding the subject of "consistency," it began with the following from your post:
<<The fact that Whitaker has published a preliminary version tells me he's consistent and has been working on the subject for some time.>>
I interpreted that to be an argument by you, that Mr. Whitaker's consistency was a positive thing and evidence of his credibility. I merely pointed out that Tokyo VD had stated that Mr. Whitaker had previously written a positive piece about Zonagen and thus, wasn't as consistent in his views as you had thought. You responded to me with the following:
<<I think that's a sign of someone who is willing to think and to constantly review the data. I don't see that as a fault. >>
On the one hand, you state that consistency is a sign he has been working on a subject for some time, but inconsistency is a sign of someone willing to think and constantly review the data. It seems whether Mr. Whitaker is consistent or inconsistent, you will view it as positive. I would like to know what happened between the publication of the positive article referred to by Tokyo VD and the negative one published in CenterWatch, to change his mind. I would also like to know whether Mr. Whitaker has or had a position in Zonagen.
<<You are trying to say that all positive articles are objective and all negative articles are the result of a plot to destroy Zonagen.>>
I didn't say that. What I said was that certain shorts attribute anything positive in the media about Zonagen to be the result of paid shills, but view anything negative about Zonagen to be undeniable fact. Despite the fact that I like reading positive stories about stocks I own, I always take what I read in the media with a grain of salt.
That's it with the misinterpretations. Now let me address some other things you said:
<< I think the evidence against Zonagen has mounted to be voluminous and cannot be dismissed any longer.>>
I disagree. All that has happened is repetition of the same thing.
<<I think some longs are trying to shore up the stock with constant hype and that some shorts are also trying to down the stock with constant hype.>>
One big difference is that the longs always admit that there can be no certainty of approval of Vasomax and acknowledge the risks. Bill Wexler and his friends have claimed absolute certainty and made irresponsible and unproven accusations.
<< I don't think either such camp has enough clout to effect the price forever without truth being on their side.>>
We agree on that. In fact, I am counting on it. I would guess that the institutions who have bought Zonagen heavily also believe that. Such is the stuff of opportunity.
<<I object to the idea of there being wealthy and well organized shorts attacking the stock without the acknowledgement that there are wealthy and well organized longs who are hyping the stock.>>
You may have a point here, although I have seen no evidence of well organized longs hyping the stock. If anything, the longs reaction to the short attack of the last few months has been quite unorganized. As far as Zonagen and Joe Podolski are concerned, I have never heard him hype his company. Whenever he speaks on conference calls, or in the few individual telephone conversations I have had with him, he is always reserved in his claims and acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in the drug approval process.
I guess, Linda, we will have to agree to disagree about Zonagen. |
